TSR TSR3.5 Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit

A lawsuit filed by TSR3 against D&D owners Wizards of the Coast a few days ago was voluntarily dismissed.

Dismissal without prejudice means that the suit can be filed again. The suit lasted two days from the 7th to the 9th of December. The IndieGoGo fundraiser to fund it is still running.

TSR LLC v. Wizards of the Coast LLC (7:21-cv-00210), North Carolina Eastern District Court

TSR LLC v. Wizards of the Coast LLC (7:21-cv-00210), North Carolina Eastern District Court, Filed: 12/07/2021

www.pacermonitor.com

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...

www.enworld.org

At first glance, the below document is dated 21st October so it’s reasonable to assume that it is not related to the recent filing; however, apparently that date is incorrect. The correct date is in the footer, and this is indeed the dismissal of the recent filing and can be found on PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Haha yeah true, Morrus. It just struck me funny, as someone who works in the court system (but not an attorney) I'm constantly amazed how terminology can vary from state to state.

It really is fascinating to see how state legal systems vary in the US, I used to be a legal researcher and whilst UK based, sometimes came across this. Hell, Louisiana isn't even common law, despite the rest and the Federal system being common law.

 

[RobJN]

On the Indegogo page:

TSR plans on Re- filing the Decclaratory Judgement of Ownership in Washington state and also carrying on its actions to have Wizards of the Coast remove of change its Legacy Disclaimer.​

Whatever rumors you have been reading Disregard.Not one Media source reporting on this dismisal (Except Clown Fish TV) asked TSR for clarifaction why the DJOO was withdrawn.​

Justin LaNasa​

CEO TSR​

Not manic, just drunk?

 

[Mort]

On the Indegogo page:

TSR plans on Re- filing the Decclaratory Judgement of Ownership in Washington state and also carrying on its actions to have Wizards of the Coast remove of change its Legacy Disclaimer.​

Whatever rumors you have been reading Disregard.Not one Media source reporting on this dismisal (Except Clown Fish TV) asked TSR for clarifaction why the DJOO was withdrawn.​

Justin LaNasa​

CEO TSR​

After seeing the suit analyzed by 2 different Trademark/copyright litigators - an actual trial on the merits would likely go VERY badly for TSR3 and its owners.

Curious if they actually plan to go through with it or what their actual game plan!

Also - the wording of LaNasa's post is interesting - he makes it seem like the lawsuit is partly to get Wizards to change the legacy disclaimer (which they object to as vilifying them), while being VERY careful to not state so outright. The lawsuit doesn't even mention the legacy disclaimer.

 

[Mallus]

The more these clowns complain about being disrespected, the less I respect them. I'm beginning to suspect that's the point.

 

[J.Quondam]

The more these clowns complain about being disrespected, the less I respect them. I'm beginning to suspect that's the point.

Yeah...These types of people cultivate a perpetual persecution complex. They have no legitimate grievances in life and society, so they have to manufacture their own outrage.
Irritatingly, there are plenty of other losers in their echochambers of idiocy who are happy to cheer them on. And also throw pennies at them, apparently.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yep. I'm not registered to vote in NC, but I'm sure there's at least one person there on Justin's bad side who could potentially cause him problems by simply submitting a complaint form at NCs election site. Which is why I said in the other thread it makes no sense why he keeps putting himself in the spotlight. The more scrutiny on him can't work in his favor.

His mistakes are so glaringly obvious, I wouldn't be surprised if this was his driver's license.
View attachment 148187

This is a fun game of spot the mistakes. Sure there is a picture of a child with a photo shopped moustache... but alsoooo..

FL driver's license ids have some common conventions for how they are assigned. The leading character ("S") is supposed to be the first letter of the person's last name ("M" for McLovin). In addition, the third set of digits ("80") is supposed to the last two digits of the person's birth year ("60" from 1960)also ooh..

Are there more?

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, we’ve tried asking them questions before. We’ve given up doing that. So speculation is what they get, by choice.

The problem being that we ask such awkward questions. You know, ones that don't sound good for them if they answer honestly.

 

[Ulfgeir]

The problem being that we ask such awkward questions. You know, ones that don't sound good for them if they answer honestly.

They would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids...

 

[Umbran]

Curious if they actually plan to go through with it or what their actual game plan!

It depends on what lawsuit they actually file.

Trademark, they might actually have a leg to stand on, in that there was a period in which WotC didn't sell the old products with the marks in question.

Copyright - they have no real chance - WotC bought every copyright held by TSR. They seem to claim that some of the art they want to use wasn't properly owned by the original TSR (made without a contract for Work for Hire, I think). But, as I understand it, at this point they can't just lay back on WotC not being able to produce said contracts - nuTSR needs positive proof no such contract (written or verbal) existed, which they are unlikely to have.

And, even if they win that argument, they then have to get the rights from the original artists. Otherwise, any use of that art so far as been in violation of copyright.

So, they may end up being able to call themselves "TSR", but not be able to use any of the imagery of the old marks. They'll need to come up with new art and fonts.

My cynical side says that the plan is probably simple - they intend to make noise in the community to get people to donate money for their lawsuit, spend as little as possible on the suit, and when they lose, pocket remaining moneys, and claim it was Big Corporation that did them wrong, and claim moral victory even if they lost.

The lawsuit doesn't even mention the legacy disclaimer.

LaNasa's video made it clear that the legacy disclaimer was going to be a separate action.

 

[Mort]

It depends on what lawsuit they actually file.

Trademark, they might actually have a leg to stand on, in that there was a period in which WotC didn't sell the old products with the marks in question.

Copyright - they have no real chance - WotC bought every copyright held by TSR. They seem to claim that some of the art they want to use wasn't properly owned by the original TSR (made without a contract for Work for Hire, I think). But, as I understand it, at this point they can't just lay back on WotC not being able to produce said contracts - nuTSR needs positive proof no such contract (written or verbal) existed, which they are unlikely to have.

And, even if they win that argument, they then have to get the rights from the original artists. Otherwise, any use of that art so far as been in violation of copyright.

So, they may end up being able to call themselves "TSR", but not be able to use any of the imagery of the old marks. They'll need to come up with new art and fonts.

My cynical side says that the plan is probably simple - they intend to make noise in the community to get people to donate money for their lawsuit, spend as little as possible on the suit, and when they lose, pocket remaining moneys, and claim it was Big Corporation that did them wrong, and claim moral victory even if they lost.



LaNasa's video made it clear that the legacy disclaimer was going to be a separate action.

I suspect you're giving them way too much credit!

I bet they file the exact same complaint, up to and including not fixing their misspelling of District.