What actually occured between TSR and Role Aids?

[Valiant]

In another thread Melan said: -Outside the OSRIC document, the supplements are on par with Role Aids material... and contrary to some online myths, those had never been ruled to be in violation of TSR's copyrights and trademarks. With the OGL, a case would be even harder to make.-


My recollection of the rumors was that Role Aids (Mayfair) had started (around 82' or so) to just make support material for 1E without any permission from TSR. Then, TSR contacted (formally or informally) Mayfair and told them to stop, at some point the two came to some agreement I believe (Role Aids was allowed to continue for a while). But then eventually for some reason Role Aids was ended.

My question are: 1. what were the original points of contention specifically, 2. what was the mutual agreement Mayfair and TSR came to, and 3. what caused the Role Aids to eventually stop (was it a legal threat by TSR, if so what about? or did the line end because it became unprofitable)? For instance, did Mayfair recieve a C&D and then just back down, did it go to mediation/arbitration/court, did TSR buy them out (as they did with EGG, as rumor has it).

I did an quick online search last night, wasn't able to dig up much, and nothing particularly reliable. So if anyone knows the history and death of Role Aids, I'd be curious to hear it, just to set the rumor mill straight.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Mayfair Games was founded in the early 1980s by Darwin Bromley in Chicago.
<snip>
In 1993, Mayfair was sued by TSR, Inc., who argued that Mayfair's "Role Aids" line of game supplements, advertised as compatible with AD&D, violated their 1984 trademark agreement. While the court found that some of the line violated their trademark, the line as a whole did not violate the agreement[2], and Mayfair continued publishing the line until the rights were bought by TSR.

Don't know how accurate this is, but here's what I found.

 

[Voadam]

TSR, INC., Plaintiff, v. MAYFAIR GAMES, INC., a corporation and DARWIN P. BROMLEY, individually and as President of Mayfair Games, Inc., Defendants.

No. 91 C 0417

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

March 15, 1993, Decided

According to the court:

"TSR, Inc. ("TSR") has sued Mayfair Games, Inc. ("Mayfair") and its President Darwin Bromley ("Bromley"), seeking injunctive relief, damages and contract rescission on the basis of several claims: (1) copyright infringement, (2) trademark infringement, false designation and misappropriation, (3) unfair competition and (4) breach of contract, all arising from Mayfair's use on its products of TSR's "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" trademark. TSR currently moves for summary judgment on the Fourth Count of its Amended Complaint, which asserts that Mayfair breached a 1984 Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") between the parties. 1 Mayfair responds by asking for summary dismissal of that breach of contract claim. For the reasons stated in this memorandum opinion and order, each motion is granted in part and denied in part."


"In 1982 Mayfair began to produce and market adventure and reference books under the trademark "Role Aids" for use in playing AD&D (D. Mem. 10, P-D P 22). TSR complained to Mayfair that Mayfair was making improper and infringing use of the AD&D trademark, and the parties signed the Agreement on September 28, 1984 to govern Mayfair's future use of TSR's trademarks (P-D P 28)."

"Under the Agreement Mayfair acknowledged TSR's ownership of the D&D and AD&D trademarks and agreed not to contest their validity (P. Ex. 1 § III, P-D P 29). Mayfair also agreed to use the AD&D trademarks solely in connection with Role Aids modules, advertising and promotional materials. TSR's trademark was to appear once on an advertisement, catalog, flyer or press release, and only within a specific emblem form 6 in which Mayfair would state that the Role Aids product involved is for use with the AD&D role-playing game and that AD&D is a registered trademark of TSR, and would disclaim TSR's approval of that specific use of TSR's trademark by Mayfair (P. Ex. 1 § I and Ex. B, P-D PP 30-32). Mayfair's own symbol was required to appear on the same page. Mayfair also agreed (2) to phase out all noncomplying packaging, (2) not to use TSR's trademark in any other manner and (3) not to include statements on Role Aids modules carrying the AD&D trademark that such modules were suitable for use with other role-playing games (P. Ex. 1 §§ IV-V and Ex. B, P-D P 36). If materials violating the Agreement were distributed, Mayfair was required to make good faith efforts to recover such materials and to withdraw and withhold offending materials from distribution (P. Ex. 1 § VI, P-D 12 P 38). Despite the foregoing prohibitions, Mayfair was not prohibited from acquiring from the creators of Dungeons and Dragons, Arneson and Gygax, any of their rights to use the D&D trademark (P. Ex. 1 § V, D-P P 121)."

...

"Unsatisfied with Mayfair's performance, on January 22, 1991 TSR filed its initial Complaint against Mayfair"

...

The court basically found there were admitted minor violations of the agreement but nothing that would be grounds for rescission of the legal agreement between TSR and Mayfair Games.

The last docket entry was on 04/21/1994.

This is the only substantive case decision found on Lexis using the party name Mayfair Games. There is one other prior one in the litigation that only deals with technical aspects of Mayfair's response to TSR's complaint.

 

[Valiant]

Thanks Vo, this is by far the most information I've seen on this subject.

You quoted: -"Unsatisfied with Mayfair's performance, on January 22, 1991 TSR filed its initial Complaint against Mayfair"

I wonder what "performance" means here? Also, did TSR get payed in some way by Role Aids for this agreement (if anyone knows)?


Its interesting that TSR basically lost this and had to buy Role Aids out. P&P would be lucky if this happend to him I should think.

 

[T. Foster]

The complete decision was posted somewhere on the 'net a few years back (Rob Kuntz's site, maybe?) and I read it. Per the 1984 agreement Mayfair agreed to use a certain format when labeling their stuff AD&D compatible -- namely, that text-box that appeared on the cover of the RoleAids books -- and also that the AD&D name not appear in a larger or more prominent font than the Mayfair/RoleAids logos, and that Mayfair not mention compatability with any other rpgs besides AD&D.

TSR's lawsuit in the 90s centered around various breaches of that format by Mayfair -- using the AD&D name outside of the text box, making the words ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS bigger than the words ROLE AIDS, saying in ad-copy "compatible with AD&D and other fantasy role-playing games," etc. The judge agreed that those were violations of the agreement, and that Mayfair was obligated to cure them on future print runs of the offending products and cease distributing the offending ad-copy, but that they weren't sufficient to terminate the agreement (i.e. Mayfair was allowed to keep labeling and advertising their RoleAids products as "compatible with AD&D").

TSR wanted the RoleAids products out of the marketplace and tried to exploit legal technicalities to force them out. When that didn't work, they then bought the line out from Mayfair (who was, by that time, looking to get out of the rpg business anyway).

 

[Voadam]

Also, did TSR get payed in some way by Role Aids for this agreement (if anyone knows)?

"TSR complained to Mayfair that Mayfair was making improper and infringing use of the AD&D trademark, and the parties signed the Agreement on September 28, 1984 to govern Mayfair's future use of TSR's trademarks"

It is possible there was payment, but I doubt it. I think the agreement was to settle claims of trademark infringement.

 

[Nikosandros]

Am I misreading this, or the whole point of contention was that Mayfair was expliticly declaring compatibility with the AD&D game? I see no mention of issues being raised about the actual content of the modules.

 

[Voadam]

Am I misreading this, or the whole point of contention was that Mayfair was expliticly declaring compatibility with the AD&D game? I see no mention of issues being raised about the actual content of the modules.

The issue was Mayfair's compliance with their 1984 agreement with TSR on how Mayfair would use the AD&D trademark and reference compatibility.

 

[Ourph]

Am I misreading this, or the whole point of contention was that Mayfair was expliticly declaring compatibility with the AD&D game?

It's not even that. The court case was a case over contract violations, not trademark. The contract concerned the use of trademarks, but the points of contention were all concerning whether Mayfair was violating the contract they agreed to, not whether they had the right to indicate compatibility with AD&D in the first place.

 

[Flynn]

All I know is that I really enjoyed the old Role Aids products, and try to use material inspired by them in my campaigns, even under 3E/v3.5.

The Demons Setting was the best of that type I've seen to date, IMHO. YMMV, of course.

With Regards,
Flynn