NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8479678" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Just as a quick FYI-1. The case is filed in North Carolina (federal court), not Wisconsin.2. The complaint is only ten pages and a quick read.3. It's not a terrible complaint, but it's also not very persuasive. It seems to not really grapple with the difference between a copyright and a trademark (which are very different things), and just kind of goes, "Oh, and copyrights to, for reasons." It does stupid mistakes (for example, it incorporates the first claim into the second ... which is the type of stupid error you see from lack of proofreading). It lacks professionalism (for example, it refers to the correspondence from the Defendant as the exhibit, then refers to it by the name of the attorney, which is both a no-no and also sloppy because it's confusing).4. The complaint, notably, mis-states or omits key facts and keeps claiming that WoTC did not prove things to TSR(cubed), but never provides further correspondence as an exhibit (hmmmm) and elides the fact that the C&D letter states clearly the basis for the C&D letter. It's in the second full paragraph, including a link to current use.Finally, the complaint doesn't have any attempt to make a claim for libel or to force WoTC to remove the warnings on older products- that's just inane and puffery, and a sure sign that the legal fundraising is a grift.If I had to guess, I'd assume that at best they are hoping to get a payout to avoid litigation. At worst, they have no idea what they are doing. Based upon their prior actions, I am not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.</blockquote>

Verification