TSR Now it’s WotC’s Turn: WotC Moves Against TSR3

I guess after you provoke somebody enough, they’ll eventually bite back. The company has begun trademark cancellation procedures against the newest TSR.

TSR3 briefly filed for a court declaration on Dec 7th as to their ownership of the TSR trademarks — with an IndieGoGo campaign to fund it — and then voluntarily dismissed it a couple of days later on Dec 9th.

This filing is dated Dec 6th, the day before TSR3 launched its campaign.

In WotC’s response, they cite fraud as one of the causes of action, alleging that TSR3 misled the trademark office in its original application.

Mike Dunford, on Twitter, breaks down the action.

TSR - TSR3.5 Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit

A lawsuit filed by TSR3 against D&D owners Wizards of the Coast a few days ago was voluntarily dismissed. Dismissal without prejudice means that the suit can be filed again. The suit lasted two days from the 7th to the 9th of December. The IndieGoGo fundraiser to fund it is still running...

www.enworld.org

TSR - TSR3.5 Launches IndieGogo Campaign to "Stop" WotC

The latest in the TSR3 saga, which has gone quiet for a while, is a new IndieGoGo campaign launched to "stop Wizards of the Coast". They cite wrongful bullying of TSR, and refusal to answer requests that WotC show TSR "proof of their claims" (although the campaign page doesn't mention what those...

www.enworld.org

 

[dirtypool]

yes, let's look. This is what you said:



which seems to be invalided because WoTC is literally doing that exact thing by letting Weis and Hickman use the original DL logo.

Except, as I said, there is no issue of brand confusion between Dragonlance and Dragonlance. WOTC owns Dragonlance and is licensing the publication of Dragonlance.

I even pointed out this distinction to you. TSR redoux using the logo or them licensing it to you to release alternate TTRPG content would create brand confusion. That is not an opinion I’m expressing, that is the legal argument WOTC is making before the Patent and Trademark Office to protect their right to continue using the TSR Man in the Moon Trademark.

Wizards isn't publishing anything with the old TSR logos either.

They are actually, POD content on DriveThruRPG.

That's sort of the entire point. But according to what you said earlier, they wouldn't give permission to any of the old logos because they do still use it as trade dress on DMsGuild.

DMsGuild =/= DTRPG even though they are housed on the same server. They use the TSR logo on DTRPG not on DMG.

Based on the fact that Wizards is in fact giving permission for someone to use the original logo for something they currently are selling on DMsGuild, your comment earlier is clearly not accurate.

What product did they give someone permission to use the original logo on DMG for? The new Dragonlance book is a novel being traditionally published by Del Rey under license to WOTC.

They literally just did what you said "would absolutely be unreasonable".

To give the TSR logo to a random schmuck to sell their own versions of old TSR content, yeah it would. This is not that. Someone who bears the “Publisher” tag really should know the difference.

It's literally on the first page of this forum,

As I acknowledged

and was linked in the first post of the thread. (it's also on her FB) Not hard to find.

As it wasn’t on her website or her Twitter, yeah it was hard to find.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Except, as I said, there is no issue of brand confusion between Dragonlance and Dragonlance. WOTC owns Dragonlance and is licensing the publication of Dragonlance.

I even pointed out this distinction to you. TSR redoux using the logo or them licensing it to you to release alternate TTRPG content would create brand confusion. That is not an opinion I’m expressing, that is the legal argument WOTC is making before the Patent and Trademark Office to protect their right to continue using the TSR Man in the Moon Trademark.

There's a whole lot of inconsistencies here, so I'll try to keep is as clear as I can. First is the above. I'm not arguing about the lawsuit or what WotC is saying it; it's not relevant to what I said.. You said "It would absolutely be unreasonable to license out the logos that they use as trade dress, because it would create brand confusion over which entity is the creator and publisher of official content.", which is exactly what they just did for Weis and Hickman. So that statement is demonstratably false.

They are actually, POD content on DriveThruRPG.

when I said they weren't publishing things with the old logos, I assumed your context was new work with logos, based on what you said here:

There is no brand confusion in that, because Wizards isn't publishing their own competing Dragonlance book."

Which is why I said WotC isn't publishing their own TSR logo'd book if that was your standard. I guess I was assuming you knew WotC was using both of those logos the same way. As per below, I guess I was incorrect in assuming you know what you were talking about. Honestly I should have known not to assume that by your earlier misunderstanding about how the licenses work for the OGL and DMsGuild.

If POD printing of old products counts as publishing (which I would argue it does), then WotC is most assuredly still publishing Dragonlance.

DMsGuild =/= DTRPG even though they are housed on the same server. They use the TSR logo on DTRPG not on DMG.

Wrong again. Legacy products are on both sites.

How can you argue there would be brand confusion using the TSR old logos but not with Dragonlance, when WoTC is utilizing them both the exact same way?

What product did they give someone permission to use the original logo on DMG for? The new Dragonlance book is a novel being traditionally published by Del Rey under license to WOTC.

Weis literally said Wizards gave them permission to use the original logo. Based on that statement, it infers that it didn't already fall under any agreement they had with Del Rey otherwise no additional permission to use it would be necessary.

To give the TSR logo to a random schmuck to sell their own versions of old TSR content, yeah it would. This is not that. Someone who bears the “Publisher” tag really should know the difference.

Despite your attempt to make this personal, you are wrong again. I never said WoTC should give it to a "random schmuck." I said someone with an existing portfolio of published work so WoTC could review and see if that publisher would be OK to license it out to, or "some of those old guard as contributors and creators", which as you'll note, is exactly what's happening with Weis and Hickman getting permission to use Dragonlance logos.

As I acknowledged

As it wasn’t on her website or her Twitter, yeah it was hard to find.

I guess we disagree here. I think a thread on the first page of the forum you're posting on, with the evidence on the very first post of that thread, is not hard to find. Nor it being on her FB profile something that was hard to find. I mean, it was literally in front of your face when you logged on and brought this site up.

For all intents and purposes, the original Dragonlance and TSR logos are being used the same way by WoTC: they appear on legacy content being sold on DTRPG and DMsGuild
WotC has just shown they are willing to grant permission to use an old logo not currently being used on new material, but still being sold under legacy products

 

[dirtypool]

There's a whole lot of inconsistencies here, so I'll try to keep is as clear as I can.

The inconsistencies only exist if you ignore context and try to broadly apply a statement about one situation to all situations. Which is a bit disingenuous

You said "It would absolutely be unreasonable to license out the logos that they use as trade dress, because it would create brand confusion over which entity is the creator and publisher of official content."

In response to the idea of licensing out the TSR logo to another company to create TTRPG content. Where indeed, as I’ve now explained four times, it would create brand confusion between two companies producing similar content.

which is exactly what they just did for Weis and Hickman. So that statement is demonstratably false.

It is not what they just did for Weiss and Hickman. Del Rey press is not publishing a TTRPG book, it’s a novel. WOTC isn’t publishing novels, so there is no confusion over which brand is producing the content. Can you not see the difference between two companies making game content and one company licensing out their own brand for long form Fiction?

I guess I was assuming you knew WotC was using both of those logos the same way.

They literally are not. One is one the cover of a traditionally printed novel in a bookstore, hoping the nostalgia of the logo will convince you to buy the book. The other is in an archival reprint wherein you won’t even see the logo until you have already purchased the product.

As per below, I guess I was incorrect in assuming you know what you were talking about.

You aren’t doing a whole lot to convince me that you’re all that knowledgeable either given your argument that a new Dragonlance novel and a 2e module are identical use cases.

Honestly I should have known not to assume that by your earlier misunderstanding about how the licenses work for the OGL and DMsGuild.

There was no misunderstanding, I clarified something and you as someone who had USED that license should have known exactly what I meant.

If POD printing of old products counts as publishing (which I would argue it does), then WotC is most assuredly still publishing Dragonlance.

Really? Where is WOTC publishing Dragonlance novels? Not adventure modules - novels. That’s what Weiss and Hickman are publishing; so WOTC would need to be doing the same.

Wrong again. Legacy products are on both sites.

It’s the same site, the same storefront. DM guilds books show up on the sent click through page, but since the TSR trade dress isn’t included in the graphic packages you can download for licensed usage I suspect any DMG creators content that uses it is probably something that slipped through a crack, and not something intentionally allowed.

How can you argue there would be brand confusion using the TSR old logos but not with Dragonlance, when WoTC is utilizing them both the exact same way?

Explained upthread how they aren’t using the logos the same way and the difference between TTRPG game content and long form Fiction. I’ve explained that in three posts now.

Weis literally said Wizards gave them permission to use the original logo.

But the original logo isn’t on that cover.

Based on that statement, it infers that it didn't already fall under any agreement they had with Del Rey otherwise no additional permission to use it would be necessary.

But the book already did fall under that agreement and WOTC chose to use this “classic” logo. It is not the same as them giving joe blow nobody internet self publisher the TSR logo so they can publish Star Frontiers on WOTC’s behalf.

I never said WoTC should give it to a "random schmuck."

You suggested they give it to you

which as you'll note, is exactly what's happening with Weis and Hickman getting permission to use Dragonlance logos.

Again, no it isn’t

I guess we disagree here. I think a thread on the first page of the forum you're posting on, with the evidence on the very first post of that thread, is not hard to find.

A thread on the forum is not hard to find, it’s also not a post by Weiss which is what you claimed was available

Nor it being on her FB profile something that was hard to find. I mean, it was literally in front of your face when you logged on and brought this site up.

The article was, her Facebook wasn’t

For all intents and purposes, the original Dragonlance and TSR logos are being used the same way by WoTC:

Again as relates to this novel - no they aren’t

WotC has just shown they are willing to grant permission to use an old logo not currently being used on new material, but still being sold under legacy products

Which is for the 80th time different than what you proposed about letting DMG authors revise TSR content.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sigh…

WoTC does publish books and novels, not that the distinction matters anyway, because it’s the logo (IP) that matters, not whether is a novel or an adventure. Your argument holds no water, otherwise LaNasa could keep selling t shirts with the TSR logo because WoTC isn’t selling shirts with that logo. And we know that’s not the case.
the original Dragonlance logo does appear on the very front of the book cover. I mean, the image is right there, I even linked to it
I never said people can revise old TSR content, and have no idea where you’re getting that from
The article on this forum on the first post is literally cut and pasted from Weis’s post, so again, you had that info literally right in front of you so if you consider that hard to find, I don’t know what to say
And so many other factual errors in your post that I’m not going to go through point by point yet again.

 

[darjr]

As far as the logo DnDBeyond makes brand new non WotC content using the logo.

 

[Dioltach]

It seems TSR has gone from "They Sue Regularly" to "They're Sued Regularly"

"They're So Recked!"

 

[dirtypool]

Sigh…

Sigh harder

WoTC does publish books and novels, not that the distinction matters anyway

WOTC hasn’t self published a novel in a few years. They license to TOR and Del Rey for their branded publication

because it’s the logo (IP) that matters, not whether is a novel or an adventure.

It actually does matter, because what matters is whether WOTC - the owner of the trademark - is willing to allow a brand confusion. They aren’t. And the Dragonlance thing would it create one since WOTC contracted with Del Rey and Weiss/Hickman for the book. They are not a competitor or an unaffiliated third party, they are quite affiliated.

Your argument holds no water, otherwise LaNasa could keep selling t shirts with the TSR logo because WoTC isn’t selling shirts with that logo. And we know that’s not the case.

He could, except of course that WOTC filed to have his hold on the trademark voided in totality because of the brand confusion over the attempt to publish Star

the original Dragonlance logo does appear on the very front of the book cover. I mean, the image is right there,

Look closer at the image, note the little floating box above the traditional portion of the logo that in the same font and color says the word “Classic”. That’s a derivative logo, not the unaltered original.

I even linked to it

But didn’t apparently look closely at it yourself

I never said people can revise old TSR content, and have no idea where you’re getting that from

You suggested that outside entities could update old content, use the TSR logo and just give WOTC a cut and proposed the DM’s Guild model. How we started.

The article on this forum on the first post is literally cut and pasted from Weis’s post, so again, you had that info literally right in front of you so if you consider that hard to find

The info is not her post, and as she uses her Twitter and website more than the Facebook I didn’t even know she had, but cool. Keep at it so you can be the most correct person online today.

 

[LordEntrails]

Let it go. Who cares how you pronounce potato?

 

[qstor]

Let it go. Who cares how you pronounce potato?

POTATOE stick em in a stew!

 

[thirdkingdom]

I'm getting ready to throw some shade for next week's OSR News Roundup:

*Frontier Explorer Issue #35 is now available for free through Drivethru. Unlike some other projects, it is a real thing written for TSR's Star Frontier system.