A few things before you move forward and waste a ton of money on legal fees - Creative Commons does NOT override trademark rights for things like their filing. The trademark application is specifically for publishing a printed product with the name Deck of Many Things (see under Goods and Services "Role playing game equipment in the nature of printed game book manual" / "Fantasy role playing games; board games, parlour games"). The SRD grants you use of content, not rights to commercial branding or title usage. You see the difference?
You can still use, under the 5.1 CC, the older Deck of Many Things and the phrase Deck of Many Things in a published adventure. You CANNOT - even before or after 5.1 was moved to the CC - publish a book and call it The Deck of Many Things without getting into a dispute with Hasbro.
Well, standing is really a different issue, but I believe you are generally correct. Under the Creative Commons 4.0 license, clause 2(b)(2) does, in fact, preclude trademarks from being licensed. Thanks for the very important clarification here.
I think a better argument than CC is that there are already numerous "Deck of Many Things" products from other publishers, so the mark is not distinctive of origin. (I'm an academic lawyer in UK teaching TM law, US & UK laws on registered TMs are fairly similar)
While true, Hasbro can show that they had popularized / coined the term Deck of Many Things back in the 70s (as they retain the ownership from TSR) and have used the name in the mainstream across multiple types of media and through national commerce up to the modern day. So much so when you think Deck of Many Things, it's because you have played Dungeons and Dragons or a TTRPG that was originally based off of their IP (ie. Pathfinder). Even then product that may carry the name Deck of Many Things were previously (and still since the CC) you are still required to acknowledge, cite, and identify where it came from - specifically the SRD 5.1, WotC, and the CC-BY 4.0 license.
Which means you have to say "Yeah, I used their information." thus confirming that you acknowledge that Deck of Many Things doesn't belong to you. And if you don't, then you are breaking the terms of CC-BY 4.0 in and of itself. So it won't be hard for them to further prove their own hold on this trademark.
Thanks! There are a couple of pillars of justiciability that have to be cleared before one could proceed with the the appeal. The first is Ripeness: the trademark first has to be granted, and it’s currently still pending. The second is Standing: one would need to demonstrate “skin in the game,” some kind of harm if the trademark were to stand. If and when that time comes, I will hit you up on your offer!
Adding to your complaint's validity is the fact that commercial products with that title have been released by other companies in the past. For example, Green Ronin sold a Deck of Many Things in the early 2000s. https://www.nobleknight.com/P/2147368313/Deck-of-Many-Things.
Yes, but that publication still provides problems for Trademarks which are required to be "distinctive." If prior products, from multiple publishers in fact and not just Green Ronin, have been published under the name Deck of Many Things, then the mark is not distinct or at least that could be argued.
I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't see how you can argue that a product from 20 years ago, produced under a license from WotC, is a reason that WotC can't trademark DoMT.
(I'm an academic lawyer in UK teaching TM law): It does actually raise a non-distinctiveness argument if there are multiple products with the same function. A TM needs to function as a badge of origin.
Generally speaking, items included in the SRD under Creative Commons licensing make a significant difference because they're explicitly released for public use with minimal restrictions, unlike proprietary content.
When companies retroactively attempt to reclaim intellectual property they've previously licensed away, they undermine consumer trust, violate the integrity of their public commitments, and create an unstable foundation for creators who rely on clear intellectual property boundaries.
It was also latent in another comment, but publishing the 5.2 SRD in no way supersedes the 5.1 and its copyright license. And if the license terms are compatible (as they seem to be), you can readily derive a work from both.
If you want a ringside seat to another active community trademark cancellation suit, keep an eye on the attempt to cancel Oracle’s JavaScript(TM) trademark. Latest news I saw: https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle3
Eta: I am not a lawyer. Just overly exposed to copyright concerns thanks to open source software.
A few things before you move forward and waste a ton of money on legal fees - Creative Commons does NOT override trademark rights for things like their filing. The trademark application is specifically for publishing a printed product with the name Deck of Many Things (see under Goods and Services "Role playing game equipment in the nature of printed game book manual" / "Fantasy role playing games; board games, parlour games"). The SRD grants you use of content, not rights to commercial branding or title usage. You see the difference?
You can still use, under the 5.1 CC, the older Deck of Many Things and the phrase Deck of Many Things in a published adventure. You CANNOT - even before or after 5.1 was moved to the CC - publish a book and call it The Deck of Many Things without getting into a dispute with Hasbro.
Your filing has no standing.
Well, standing is really a different issue, but I believe you are generally correct. Under the Creative Commons 4.0 license, clause 2(b)(2) does, in fact, preclude trademarks from being licensed. Thanks for the very important clarification here.
I think a better argument than CC is that there are already numerous "Deck of Many Things" products from other publishers, so the mark is not distinctive of origin. (I'm an academic lawyer in UK teaching TM law, US & UK laws on registered TMs are fairly similar)
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/lanham_act for a quick primer on registrability
Excellent, thank you, Simon. I’ve added an addendum to this article reflecting your valuable input.
While true, Hasbro can show that they had popularized / coined the term Deck of Many Things back in the 70s (as they retain the ownership from TSR) and have used the name in the mainstream across multiple types of media and through national commerce up to the modern day. So much so when you think Deck of Many Things, it's because you have played Dungeons and Dragons or a TTRPG that was originally based off of their IP (ie. Pathfinder). Even then product that may carry the name Deck of Many Things were previously (and still since the CC) you are still required to acknowledge, cite, and identify where it came from - specifically the SRD 5.1, WotC, and the CC-BY 4.0 license.
Which means you have to say "Yeah, I used their information." thus confirming that you acknowledge that Deck of Many Things doesn't belong to you. And if you don't, then you are breaking the terms of CC-BY 4.0 in and of itself. So it won't be hard for them to further prove their own hold on this trademark.
Dave, do you want any help with the costs of this filing?
Thanks! There are a couple of pillars of justiciability that have to be cleared before one could proceed with the the appeal. The first is Ripeness: the trademark first has to be granted, and it’s currently still pending. The second is Standing: one would need to demonstrate “skin in the game,” some kind of harm if the trademark were to stand. If and when that time comes, I will hit you up on your offer!
Adding to your complaint's validity is the fact that commercial products with that title have been released by other companies in the past. For example, Green Ronin sold a Deck of Many Things in the early 2000s. https://www.nobleknight.com/P/2147368313/Deck-of-Many-Things.
Green Ronin's DoMT was published using the OGL.
Yes, but that publication still provides problems for Trademarks which are required to be "distinctive." If prior products, from multiple publishers in fact and not just Green Ronin, have been published under the name Deck of Many Things, then the mark is not distinct or at least that could be argued.
I'm not a lawyer, but I just don't see how you can argue that a product from 20 years ago, produced under a license from WotC, is a reason that WotC can't trademark DoMT.
(I'm an academic lawyer in UK teaching TM law): It does actually raise a non-distinctiveness argument if there are multiple products with the same function. A TM needs to function as a badge of origin.
Pardon me if I'm missing something, but I don't see why two magic items being or not being in the SRD makes that much difference.
Generally speaking, items included in the SRD under Creative Commons licensing make a significant difference because they're explicitly released for public use with minimal restrictions, unlike proprietary content.
When companies retroactively attempt to reclaim intellectual property they've previously licensed away, they undermine consumer trust, violate the integrity of their public commitments, and create an unstable foundation for creators who rely on clear intellectual property boundaries.
This feels like a PR stunt.
You're a legend DT. Thanks for shining a light on this.
I came here to say what it looks like many others have already covered: that copyright is independent of patents and trademarks, and grants of one don’t necessarily touch the others. Creative Commons has a FAQ that touches on this: https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/%20CC0_FAQ#What_about_other_IP_related_rights.2C_such_as_trademark_and_patent_rights.3F
It was also latent in another comment, but publishing the 5.2 SRD in no way supersedes the 5.1 and its copyright license. And if the license terms are compatible (as they seem to be), you can readily derive a work from both.
If you want a ringside seat to another active community trademark cancellation suit, keep an eye on the attempt to cancel Oracle’s JavaScript(TM) trademark. Latest news I saw: https://deno.com/blog/deno-v-oracle3
Eta: I am not a lawyer. Just overly exposed to copyright concerns thanks to open source software.