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

 

[pemerton]

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

Yes. Why are you repeating what I've already posted as if you are contradicting me?

If you read the TSR3 pleading, you will see at paragraph 16 they assert that WotC has not been trading using the marks; at para 17 points out that WotC is relying on the fact that it has licensed its marks to another entity (DriveThru, presumably); and then at 18 disputes that any such licence agreement exists.

That claim at 18 may be false. For all I know, it is knowingly false. But if WotC were selling physical copies of Star Frontiers with the TSR logos on them via Target and FLGSs, I can guarantee that paras 16 to 18 would not appear in these pleadings. In fact I would say that if WotC were selling physical copies of Star Frontiers with TSR logos on them then no pleading would have been lodged, as there would be no argument at all in TSR3's favour.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Do you mean Nike marks? Those obviously pertain to apparel, not soft drinks.
.

I have no idea what you are saying anymore.

1. Marks (trade and service) are a creature of common law in the United States. They are acquired through USE.

2. You can register your marks with states and the federal government which provided you certain advantages.

3. When you register those marks, you claim the category you are using it it. So when Coca Cola makes t-shirts and hats and other apparel (as they do), they will register in that category in ADDITION to the other categories that they have registered. Again, they acquired the marks through use.

Edit- your posts (which are very argumentative) seem odd because it seems clear you do not have an understanding of this area.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, NO.

McDonalds does not lost its mark because it has a franchise arrangement.

If the law is complicated to you, just watch Coming to America.

I watched Coming to America and all I got was this lousy McDowell's t-shirt.

 

[Umbran]

DriveThruRPG, on the other hand - or some other entity in some relationship to it (I don't know the full corporate and contractual structure) - does own the PoD books prior to shipping them to a customer.

I return to - they cannot be trading under the mark if they don't get to choose the mark.

Yes. Why are you repeating what I've already posted as if you are contradicting me?

Because you are pressing forward with an argument as if these points had not been raised.

It looks like you are driving at how TSR3 is going to be making some novel, groundbreaking, precedent-setting legal strategy that nobody has ever thought, and had rejected, before.

As a practical matter, what are the odds that in this case, TSR3 is going to change the entire freaking world of electronic publishing?

(Edited because I made a hash out of the last sentence.)

 

[Maxperson]

I have it on good authority that my local bookstore owns Star Wars!

Thank God! Maybe we'll get some decent movies now.

 

[see]

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

So your theory as to what LaNasa/TSR3's lawsuit is trying to claim is that since WotC/Hasbro (potentially, since neither they nor we know their contract details) never has title or physical possession of the physical books, they might not count as trading under the mark on the books, but rather OneBookShelf does? That's, well, theoretically possible, sure.

But it's not particularly material to either the suit in Federal court or the TTAB action. The simple and demonstrable fact of prior and continuing use in commerce for both PDFs and physical books blows up any theory of LaNasa/TSR3 making exclusive use of the mark. That means in the court case LaNasa/TSR3 can't get a judgment that it owns the mark (since it doesn't), and in the TTAB proceeding, it's sufficient to demonstrate LaNasa didn't have the right to register the mark.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Some relevant info from OBS's agreements with publishers:

Regarding copyright, DriveThruRPG / OneBookshelf does not require or handle copyright registration for your products, although we certainly encourage people to protect their rights.

Warranties​

You represent and warrant to us that you have the right to enter into this agreement.--(you control IP)

You indemnify us and will hold us harmless from any claims, suits, loss, and damages arising out of allegations of copyright or trademark infringement or libel arising out of our distribution and sale your titles.

Exclusive Agreement​

--my note: (you sign up for either exclusive--selling your products on their site alone--or non-exclusive--where they sell your products and you can sell it elsewhere)

You grant us the exclusive right to resell your digital download format titles.

..................


So I think that answers the debate pretty clearly.

 

[Dausuul]

I feel like it would be tremendously helpful to have an "IAAL" badge in threads like this.

 

[LordEntrails]

@Sacrosanct Thanks for that. But I doubt that WotC's agreement with OBS is the same one that OBS offers to smaller publisher's like us.

 

[Sacrosanct]

@Sacrosanct Thanks for that. But I doubt that WotC's agreement with OBS is the same one that OBS offers to smaller publisher's like us.

Possibly. But it OBS says that small publishers retain their rights to the IP, I very much doubt that they'd get the IP from WotC in some sort of other agreement. That would seem very backwards to me. If anything, I'd think WoTC would ask for extra IP protections, not less. After all, WoTC has all the cards. OBS stands to make a ton of money on WoTC products just on a base % agreement. I can't see them jeopardizing that to ask for WotC's IP