First, let me say that I am not a lawyer; this is my layman's understanding of the current state of the law. Do not rely upon anything here to make legal decisions. If you need legal advice about trademarks, talk to a lawyer who specializes in that arcane field.
Valiant said:
Q: But it is a violation to say something is "compatable with" without permission, right?
Not necessarily. It is a violation of a trademark to "trade upon" a trademark you don't own or have some rights to. What exactly "trade upon" means is very fact-specific. (See also, "fair use" of a copyright.)
Valiant said:
For instance, I can't start selling cleaning rags and write on the packaging "compatable with Pledge", not without permission of whomever controls that trademark.
If you make a true statement, don't use the trademark to draw customers to your product, and don't represent yourself as the owner of the trademark, you can probably say exactly that without any permission being required. The trick comes in deciding where the line between information and promotion lies. The original agreement between Mayfair and TSR addressed exactly this line. Mayfair had a license from TSR to use the trademarks of TSR in very specific ways.
Valiant said:
It seems like the same arguement would hold true for RA saying they were AD&D compatable, Yet, if TSR didn't get any money from Role Aid's sales (and there's nothing to indicate they did), why allow them to continue publishing AD&D compatable modules in the first place (it wasn't like they were helping the TSR AD&D brand much, and their modules competed with their own). Why not shut them down in 84'. It seems like I'm missing something here.
Mayfair wasn't the only company that sold products that were noted on the packaging as being compatible with D&D. (I worked for someone who sold similar products; hence the specific knowledge in this case.) TSR had the money to buy lawyers and intimidated some companies into compliance; Darwin and Peter, though, had their own money, and IIRC were/are both lawyers, which rather changes that particular equation.
If I understand the caselaw correctly, posting a statement in such a way that it isn't likely to draw the attention of a consumer passing by is unlikely to be a trademark violation, in the same way as saying that a specific replacement carburetor will work on a '72 Camaro isn't a violation of the trademark of Chevrolet.
Valiant said:
Interestingly neither the original agreement between TSR and Role Aids or the lawsuit that followed had anything to do with content similarity (copywrite) (which is something I'd always assumed). :\
Copyright (note: not "copywrite"), patent, and trademark cover very different things (as you perhaps know, though others don't). The use of "compatible with" or the use of logos, etc., falls directly into trademark law.
Again, I am not a lawyer in any jurisdiction. The above should not be relied upon as legal advice of any sort.
