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...

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).


zw5pyzcqtfqc7xu2.jpg


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.


 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
No. If I buy a POD, I buy it form WotC (or from any other company that sells them on Drivetrhu). Drivethru prints them and ships them, but the seller is WotC.
I don't think this is correct. Your contractual relationship is with DriveThru. And who commissions the printer? I'm pretty confident it's DriveThru.
 


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
(1) If you buy a t-shirt with (say) the Coca Colo logo printed on it, the t-shirt vendor is not trading, nor purporting to trade, as a maker or seller of soft drinks. So the key IP question is about copyright (ie do they have a licence to reproduce the graphics), not trademarks.

Okay.

So based on this, that whole apparel category of mark is useless, right? Or, for that matter, a mark that is a graphic?

These posts are so bizarre to me.
 

pemerton

Legend
Let’s say for sake of argument that WoTC doesn’t own the marks because OBS is the one who is actually selling them.
I've made exactly this point in a couple of posts upthread.

But selling under an unregistered mark is not sufficient to establish a trademark. Whether DriveThru meets the other requirements I'm not competent to say, both as to the relevant facts and the relevant law. Presumably TSR3's lawyers will be trying to make some sort of case that those requirements have not been met.
 


pemerton

Legend
Okay.

So based on this, that whole apparel category of mark is useless, right? Or, for that matter, a mark that is a graphic?
Do you mean Nike marks? Those obviously pertain to apparel, not soft drinks.

Or are you saying that there is also an apparel mark in relation to Coca Cola? Maybe - I don't know enough about the Coca Cola-branded apparel industry to express a view.

But let's take an example that I am more confident about: in Australia Staedtler clearly enjoys a trademark in relation to the sale of lead pencils, but I have never seen the least hint, in Australia, of any sort of distinctive branding of Staedtler apparel that would establish a trade mark in that respect. But if I wanted to print Staedtler-logoed t-shirts I would still need copyright permission from Staedtler to reproduce their graphic.

On the other hand, if I was to print t-shirts with the word Staedtler in plain type I don't think there would be a copyright violation and for the reasons given in the previous paragraph I doubt there would be a trademark issue.
 


pemerton

Legend
Amazon sells print on demand books too. Do they own the trademarks and copyright on those books? All of them? No.
Licensing is not the same as assignment. Having a permission to use someone's IP is not the same as owning it.

"Using" in the previous sentence is a semi-technical term. Target does not use anyone's IP by selling a book. But DriveThru does use WotC's IP when it allows you to download a file, or when it has a book POD-ed for you.

I mean, why do you think your contractual relationship with DriveThru is more complicated than your contractual relationship with a bookshop or DVD shop?
 

darjr

I crit!
Licensing is not the same as assignment. Having a permission to use someone's IP is not the same as owning it.

"Using" in the previous sentence is a semi-technical term. Target does not use anyone's IP by selling a book. But DriveThru does use WotC's IP when it allows you to download a file, or when it has a book POD-ed for you.

I mean, why do you think your contractual relationship with DriveThru is more complicated than your contractual relationship with a bookshop or DVD shop?
Amazon does the SAME EXACT THING. For some products there are books that have NO physical product prior to purchase. You can download a digital copy FROM their servers or get delivered a POD that Amazon POD-ed. Zero physical books involved.

Amazon doesn't own the tradmarks, nor the copyrights, nor are either of those lapsed in any way.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top