"Alec A. Burkhardt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem here is that logos are just trademarks like the words. They
> don't have separate law protecting them. So you cannot make the argument
> you are making above that it is legally ok to use 1 type of trademark and
> not legally ok to use the other. I understand the position of some that
> they should be able to say "compatible with Dungeons & Dragons" using some
> anonymous typeface as opposed to using the typeface WotC uses. The law
> does not distinguish trademarks in that manner explicitly. As far as I
> know it's not clear if the law would distinguish in that manner. A basic
> reading of law would indicate that no court would except such a
> distinction. Microsoft enforces the use of their compatible logo through
> market factors not through trademark law. WotC does not have that
> advantage and so would need to rely on trademark law. If WotC didn't
> fight the use of just the words, they'd likely have problems fighting the
> use of the logo.
A couple of comments. All IMHO, of course.
My understanding, based on the discussion here, is that writing "Compatible
with D&D" is no legally different from slapping the WotC logo on the book.
Where I would guess the court might see a difference is that if you actually
used the logo, WotC would have a much stronger case that the use was
diluting their trademark and hence illegal.
On the MS compatible logo, remember that this is NOT just a claim of
compatibility made by the vendor. It means that the product has been tested
according to a set of requirements defined by MS and has met those
requirements. The equivalent, for our purposes, would be a "WotC Approved"
logo. This is something WotC would charge for, and in fact I believe MS DOES
charge for the use of that logo (although I am willing to be corrected). So
you are making a promise above and beyond trademark law by using it, and I
expect that a court would almost automatically find against someone who used
the logo without passing that testing process.
As a side note, I'm one of those people who believes that very little will
be done under the OGL. For the most part, I think the D20 license is more
attractive to those seeking to market their material, and if you're not
trying to market it, why should you care about the license? WotC is unlikely
to go after free material unless the circumstances are exceptional (just
like Paramount allows Trek Fanfic to circulate).
_____________________________________________________
Kevin J. Brennan, Fourth Millennium Line Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / http://www.fourth-millennium.com/
"I hate all boets and bainters."
--Only recorded English-language statement of King George I
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
