With the new Creative Commons SRD and the OGL no longer applying, can I name spells from Tasha's Cauldron in my supplement book?

Question

This question has been asked here before the OGL scandal and I've seen the answers. From what I understood the, OGL had an agreement in place to not name any intellectual property, like spell names in supplements using the attached SRD.

Now, with the SRD being under Creative Commons and the OGL no longer being attached to it, am I legally allowed to name a spell that is in another book like Tasha's Cauldron of Everything?

For example, if I mention that "The 'Synaptic Static' spell would have a special effect on this magic item if it's cast on it", would that be in breach of Copyright/Trademark law or is it fine to simply name the spells?

Answer 1

The phrase "Synaptic Static" does not appear in the rules published under Creative Commons. It means that the new license does not apply to the spell name or description in any way.

This document contains all materials related to D&D 5e published by the Wizards of the Coast under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (“CC-BY-4.0”) as of this date. To use anything else, you have to obtain permission of WotC, or use freedoms guaranteed to you by your national copyright and trademark laws. Most law systems allow some use of trademarks and copyrighted content, but without knowing where you are located and where you are going to publish it's impossible to tell what freedoms apply and what rights you may have. And remember, even if your local laws allows you to use some phrases and terms, it does not stop WotC from suing you, and they probably have a bigger budget for lawyers than you have.

---

Questions about using materials not under open licence was already asked here, for example:

• Can artificer subclasses be in (third-party) material published under the OGL?
• Can I legally refer to Maneuvers under the OGL?
• Can I use UA material if I'm writing a D&D 5E OGL supplement to be sold on DriveThruRPG or Amazon?

Others can be easily found. Arguments used there didn't change with change of licence, because neither of licences applied to the content you are asking about at all.