----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [ogf-d20-l] Distribution
> In a message dated Thu, 12 Oct 2000 5:05:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Steve Wieck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> << I don't understand how you might consider this legal. No matter how the
D&D
> trademark appears in an ad, it's still appearing in the ad. Just because
> it's a piece of another image (your cover) doesn't give it any mystical
> protection as far as I'm aware. >>
>
> Based on the idea that it *is* used legally on the product. And you need
to be able to show your product in advertising in a way that is not a
misrepresentation. Couldn't removing it set someone up for liability?
>
> -Paul @ Team Frog Studios
> Publishers of Crunchy Frog / Nightshift Games
> www.teamfrog.com
>
More of a question than an answer,
Surely if the D&D trademark does not appear in your advert you are
missleading the general consumer (who might for instance purchase through
mailorder, only ever seeing an advertisment) by not stating that your
product requires these core books. Does this not make you liable for
falsely promoting a product that does not in itself stand alone (as in "this
product requires batteries")? I admit my understanding of the law is very
shakey about this matter, but if a product itself is not a complete item as
such is it not a requirement of law that its must state what supporting
material it needs on both its packaging (cover, box, etc) and in its
advertisments as well?
matt gibbs
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
