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 claims are).

The IndieGoGo campaign was launched yesterday and has so far raised $675 (at the time of writing).

The action TSR seeks is a "Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership" which is a court declaration about the status of something in dispute.

TSR has launched a campaign to stop Wizards of the Coast

Become a Champion of TSR and Support TSR’s campaign against Wizards of the Coast!

TSR is taking a stand against Wizards of the Coast (“WOTC”) and its wrongful bullying of TSR, our trademarks, and its public libeling and slander of all those who helped create TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and products.

Wizards of the Coast has continually bullied TSR regarding TSR’s legally owned Trademarks. Wizards of the Coast has refused to answer all of TSR's repeated requests that they show any proof of their claims. Wizards of the Coast has the vast resources behind them and is implying to bring them to bear down on TSR.

The new TSR suffered widespread pushback when it launched, which they blamed on WotC, claiming that they were under a "coordinated assault across various channels being mounted.... by [WotC]" The company announced itself earlier this year, having acquired the TSR trademark after the previous holder accidentally let it lapse. It was run by Ernie Gygax, Justin LaNasa, and Stephen Dinehart. After several weeks of controversy, the company split into two -- Wonderfilled (Stephen Dinehart), and TSR (Ernie Gygax and Justin LaNasa).

TSR - TSR3 Blames Widespread Pushback On WotC

In an unexpected turn of events, the primary individuals behind TSR3 have claimed the pushback they've received on social media and elsewhere was orchestrated by .... D&D publisher Wizards of the Coast (a company which has thus far remained completely silent on recent events). TSR3 is run by...

www.enworld.org

The page also indicates an intention to "fight to have WotC's legacy product disclaimer removed" from older products (that's the disclaimer on the older books available on DMs Guild which indicates that those books are products of their time) by claiming that the disclaimer portrays the creators of those older products as "as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products".

TSR will also Fight to Have the WOTC Legacy Disclaimer Removed

TSR is suing WOTC for Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership . TSR will also pursue in the near future having WOTC remove the legacy content disclaimer placed on TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and other products, and retractions of any other libel and slander which alleges that racism and other heinous beliefs are incorporated into those products.

This disclaimer attempts to make a statement of fact argument, and therefore paints all of the writers, editors, artists and consumers of those products as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products. This statement by Wizards of the Coast opens the possibility for the producers and players of these "Legacy Products" to face ridicule, and face the labeling as "bigots", "racists", "misogynists", and worse Cyber & Physical Attacks!

Wizards of the Coast legacy content disclaimer.

"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".

TSR3's Justin LaNasa spoke about the campaign in a YouTube video.

TSR - Companies & Freelancers Distance Themselves From The New TSR

The new TSR (which I refer to as TSR3 to avoid confusion) has doubled down on its stance--which has been widely condemned online--via an ongoing series of tweets and replies from its TSR Games, Giantlands, and Dungeon Hobby Museum social media accounts (possibly operated by Justin LaNasa) in an...

www.enworld.org

 

[LordEntrails]

It's weird to say you don't believe WotC has been using those marks the whole time when you admit that they sent you two links that prove just that.

I suspect one could argue that those links to DMsGuild and DriveThruRPG only prove that products with those logos and trademarks were being sold on the date(s) that the website was visited. Rather than proves that those products were sold every day/month/year in the intervening time.

For instance, I know the Star Frontiers products were not for sale on OBS sites for many of the intervening years, and were available freely (with permission, that was withdraw when they went on sale on the OBS websites) on a fan website (one of the SF fan sites operated by the Tom's (Tom S I think).

I have no idea what that free distribution may have as an impact legally, but even when they were, I was never in doubt that they were IP owned by WotC/Hasbro.

 

[darjr]

Also Tom was working with WotC and had their permission, in writing, to distribute Starfrontiers PDFs and such. He still is working with WotC and just released a new SF adventure on Drivethru.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also, the agreement you make with one bookshelf is super easy to find. Literally everyone (including me) who sells things there has seen the agreement because we all agree to it. Demanding WoTC provide the agreement is even dumber, because it's freely accessible to all.

WoTC was using a vendor to sell their products with those marks. End stop. Happens ALL THE TIME with companies. It makes zero sense to try to argue that WoTC wasn't selling it but OB. When you sell something on Etsy or eBay, it's still you selling it.

 

[darjr]

Also Toms use was a LICENSE from WotC

A strange one to be sure. Make no mistake though WotC never let their rights lapse.

 

[Remathilis]

Anyone want to guess how long a disclaimer FATAL would need?

It's a sticker that says: "Just, Don't."

 

[Azzy]

Also Tom was working with WotC and had their permission, in writing, to distribute Starfrontiers PDFs and such. He still is working with WotC and just released a new SF adventure on Drivethru.

Yeah, I had gotten everything from his site back in the day—it was a great resource.

 

[darjr]

Yeah, I had gotten everything from his site back in the day—it was a great resource.

It was. The remasters are awesome.

Be on the lookout for a bunch of SF stuff from them on Drivethru

 

[pemerton]

If target sells a WotC boxed set is it target using the logo or WotC?

WotC - the logo is distinguishing WotC's goods. In the scenario you describe, Target is just the retailer.

I think the argument is that the trademarks technically aren't being used by Wizards themselves, but rather by OneBookShelf* (aka RPGNow/DrivethruRPG), and that while Wizards claim that they are doing so under license TSR has requested to see that license but Wizards has not allowed them to do that.

<snip>

I am not a lawyer, but this line of argument does not seem entirely solid.

The difference here is that DriveThruRPG is not retailing goods produced and branded by WotC, at least not straightforwardly. The "goods" in question are electronic files, and so it is more like a provision of a service. I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to know how that changes the situation, but I suspect it's an important component of the argument.

 

[see]

WotC - the logo is distinguishing WotC's goods. In the scenario you describe, Target is just the retailer.

The difference here is that DriveThruRPG is not retailing goods produced and branded by WotC, at least not straightforwardly. The "goods" in question are electronic files, and so it is more like a provision of a service. I'm not enough of an IP lawyer to know how that changes the situation, but I suspect it's an important component of the argument.

DriveThru actually does retail physical books of some old titles, including the 1e Fiend Folio with the original cover (and thus the old "TSR The Game Wizards" logo mark). Produced via POD, but still, retailing a physical good.

And, per this blog entry, have been doing so since at least 2019, which puts it to before LaNasa claimed the mark and continually since.

WotC is going to have to actually provide evidence of that to the court, but when they do, it's game over. WotC/Hasbro may have had a discontinuity in the past, but they revived the mark by use before LaNasa tried to claim it, and have been using it continually since their revival. It's now just a common-law trademark instead of a registered one, but it's WotC/Hasbro's mark, not LaNasa's.

 

[pemerton]

DriveThru actually does retail physical books of some old titles, including the 1e Fiend Folio with the original cover (and thus the old "TSR The Game Wizards" logo mark). Produced via POD, but still, retailing a physical good.

WotC didn't produce those goods and sell them to DriveThru. DriveThru is producing those under licence of some sort.