TSR TSR (2) Confirms TSR (3)'s Acquisition of Trademark (Updated!)

Jayson Elliot registered the TSR trademark back in 2011 and used it to launch Gygax Magazine along with Ernie and Luke Gygax. The two Gygax's left the company a few years later after Gary Gygax's (co-founder of TSR (1) back in the 1970s) widow, Gail Gygax, forced the closure of Gygax Magazine. Then, earlier this year, TSR (3) swooped in on the TSR trademark, after Jayson Elliot accidentally let it lapse, as TSR (2) confirms:

We have owned the TSR trademark since 2011. Last year, we missed a filing date, and another company registered it, though we are still using it in commerce. While we could win a lawsuit, we frankly don't have the money to litigate. So, we're licensing it back from them.

As a result, there are two companies now using the name TSR. You can tell when it's us because we're the only ones using the new logo.

They're opening a museum in Lake Geneva at the old TSR house, and we wish them success with it, it's important to celebrate the legacy that Gary Gygax created.

Ernie Gygax, formerly of TSR (1) under Gary Gygax, then working with Jayson Elliot as part of TSR (2), is one of the founders of of TSR (3), and confirmed in his (now infamous) interview --

The other TSR is a licensee because [Jayson Elliot] let it lapse. But he had absolutely ... love for the game and the products. There was no reason to say 'oh you've screwed up, oh it's all ours, ha ha ha ha!' Instead, Justin [LaNasa] came to him and said ... we love that you're doing Top Secret things, we have a much broader goal for the whole thing. But there's no reason for you to stop or even have any troubles. Justin said, I'll take care of the paperwork, you just give me $10 a year, and you put out all this love for old school gaming that you can. And we appreciate that you were there to try and pick up things, and you produced Gygax Magazine, for in its time that you're also working on a game that you love to play ... because Top Secret was Jayson's love, as a young man.

TSR (2), still run by Jayson Elliot, publishes Top Secret, and is not connected to TSR (3) other than now having to license it’s own name from them. TSR (3) has also registered the trademark to Star Frontiers, a game owned by and still currently sold by D&D-owner WotC.

In other news the GYGAX trademark appears to have lapsed.

UPDATE! TSR (2) has decided NOT to license its own name from TSR (3):

Update to our earlier tweet - we will NOT be licensing anything from the new company claiming rights to the TSR logos. We are not working with them in any fashion.

 

[pemerton]

I think he is saying that some of the attutides and statements towards those who were part of the gaming culture in the past and who created the game as well as those who were contributors as players of the game at the origins of the game were bullied then, and the bullying has continued today.

<snip>

I expect there will be bullies who will condemn and crash upon me because of what I am posting here, I think he is correct. There IS a large mindset that seems to want to bully others today and jump to conclusions which may or may not be correct.

<snip>

He is using that to say that when they created the game in the past or were part of the players, they were not purposefully trying to create a discriminatory or prejudice game that excluded anyone, but that instead they were trying to be inclusive. That statements from articles or warnings that indicate that this was their background and impetus...are incorrect and this is what he is disagreeing with in modern game design.

It's is not bullying you to disagree with you. Nor is it bullying Gygax Jr to disagree with him and to be critical of what he has said. He is the one who has decided that the brand image of his company is that it caters to particular views about gender identity. He is the one who announced that in a web interview. I think if you do that, then you take your chances!

I don't know what you have in mind as attitudes and statements towards those who were part of the gaming culture in the past and who created the game as well as those who were contributors as players of the game at the origins of the game or as statements from articles or warnings that indicate that their background and impetus was purposefully trying to create a discriminatory or prejudiced game. This is the WotC disclaimer on DriveThruRPG:

We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.​

This doesn't say anything about any creators, contributors or players, let alone anything about their background, impetus or purposes. It doesn't even really imply anything about them, except that they produced material that reflected commonplace ethnic, racial and gender prejudices.

Here are a couple of examples that come readily to my mind:

* The presentation of women in the AD&D rulebooks (eg strength limits; the random harlot table and other commentary on the City/Town Encounter matrix - eg (DMG p 192) that "Goodwife encounters are with a single woman, often indistinguishable from any other type of female (such as a magic-user, harlot, etc.));

* The presentation of "tribesmen" in the AD&D Monster Manual (p 68), who "are typically found in tropical jungles or on islands" and may have "2-12 captives (food!) held in a pen".​

To me, these seem - at the least - to bear out the assertion made in the disclaimer. Do you disagree?

 

[FrozenNorth]

I am starting to seriously think Ernie Jr is showing a lot of signs of senility and the people around him are taking full advantage of it. It may be time for his family to make an intervention before all this can totally destroy him.

I don’t think it’s senility. I have a friend that this reminds me of: there isn’t the intention of hurting other people, but there is a tendency to say things that hurt other people and an inability/unwillingness to introspect and consider why their words have the effect they have. (Related, also a tendency to blame others for the consequences of their words).

We basically try to push them through baby steps to be more empathetic, and of course, DEFINITELY DO NOT PUT THEM IN A MEDIA, MARKETING SPOKESPERSON POSITION.

I think part of the tragedy here is that Ernie is colossally unsuited for the role he is playing.

 

[Neonchameleon]

He is using that to say that when they created the game in the past or were part of the players, they were not purposefully trying to create a discriminatory or prejudice game that excluded anyone, but that instead they were trying to be inclusive. That statements from articles or warnings that indicate that this was their background and impetus...are incorrect and this is what he is disagreeing with in modern game design.

With all due respect so what? Intent isn't magic.

The game they created may or may not have been an attempt to be inclusive (I wasn't there) - but it is absolutely certain that they did not completely succeed. I could (as others have) dig up reasons why including the notorious harlot table, the way the girdle of masculinity/femininity was handled, and the way both orcs and drow (and half-orcs) are portrayed - but even if they weren't there the game was created by imperfect humans with imperfect knowledge and is therefore imperfect and can be improved on..

If a significant intent was actually to create an inclusive game and modern authors have built on this to create a more inclusive one on the base of something that was intended to be inclusionary and fell short (as all complex human works do from their ideals) then the only possible response that is in line with the original intent is to applaud. The new people have taken the thing and, while paying respect to it, made it better. And to object to that is a betrayal of inclusionary principles - meaning that if the game was originally created with inclusionary principles it's a betrayal of the principles underlying the game.

What was the statement? To copy it from @pemerton

We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end.​

This doesn't say "these were terrible people seeking to do harm", just "they were a product of their time and their work is imperfect". Which is obviously true. So if they are what he is disagreeing with it either means (a) he is so out of touch to not see how something e.g. with a harlot table could be less than perfect or (b) he is actively arguing in favour of keeping the problematic parts. The best possibility is that it's (a) with him identifying too strongly with the work, but this is at the very least not making me think he has much useful to say other than about history.

 

[Hussar]

As far as disclaimers go, that's pretty even handed. It's not singling out anyone. It's not pointing any fingers. It's stating bare facts without any real interpretation.

The sad truth is though, any disclaimer is seen as an attack in certain quarters. As if burying facts has ever worked in the past. It will always come out.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

As if burying facts has ever worked in the past. It will always come out.

How do we know that? If a fact had been successfully buried, we wouldn't know anything about it. We only hear about the ones that do come out.

 

[DammitVictor]

As far as disclaimers go, that's pretty even handed. It's not singling out anyone. It's not pointing any fingers. It's stating bare facts without any real interpretation.

The sad truth is though, any disclaimer is seen as an attack in certain quarters. As if burying facts has ever worked in the past. It will always come out.

I'm not angry about putting the disclaimer on ALL THE BOOKS because it was an attack on innocent, harmless old books I enjoyed.

I'm angry about it because it was lazy and didn't actually acknowledge the problems, and because putting it on the Arms & Equipment Guide and all the encylopedias of spells and magic items makes it meaningless on the books that really needed it like (my favorite) The Orcs of Thar and The Atruaghin Clans and everyone's new favorite punching bag, Oriental Adventures.

 

[Retreater]

I'm not angry about putting the disclaimer on ALL THE BOOKS because it was an attack on innocent, harmless old books I enjoyed.

I'm angry about it because it was lazy and didn't actually acknowledge the problems, and because putting it on the Arms & Equipment Guide and all the encylopedias of spells and magic items makes it meaningless on the books that really needed it like (my favorite) The Orcs of Thar and The Atruaghin Clans and everyone's new favorite punching bag, Oriental Adventures.

To be fair, blanket disclaimers like this were put on retro Disney movies and Looney Tunes cartoons. So it's kind of like standard practice. And we've seen some controversy in the naming of magic items (phylactery, for example).
Honestly, there's so many things that could offend that I understand putting it on all past products (and maybe even something revised on current and future products).

 

[DammitVictor]

Honestly, there's so many things that could offend that I understand putting it on all past products (and maybe even something revised on current and future products).

Let me just say that I have very strong opinions about them condemning concepts in TSR products that they're still publishing in WotC products.

The evil soul-thingy that powers a Lich is still called a "phylactery".

 

[Zardnaar]

To be fair, blanket disclaimers like this were put on retro Disney movies and Looney Tunes cartoons. So it's kind of like standard practice. And we've seen some controversy in the naming of magic items (phylactery, for example).
Honestly, there's so many things that could offend that I understand putting it on all past products (and maybe even something revised on current and future products).

It's kind of condescending though. I'm not stupid if I'm watching an older movie I don't expect it to conform to modern standards.

 

[Cadence]

Let me just say that I have very strong opinions about them condemning concepts in TSR products that they're still publishing in WotC products.

The evil soul-thingy that powers a Lich is still called a "phylactery".

I had no idea!

I'm guessing a lot of things in D&D came from Roget's Thesaurus which has phylactery under amulet and going with charm, fetish, amulet, antinganting, periapt, and talisman (so definitions 2 and 3 in the OED). I wonder what WotC's answer would be now if it was pointed out how that feels bad in light of it's first definition.