- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NFL responds to Vitter
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:31 pm to sml71
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:31 pm to sml71
I found this shirt on a site this is licensed to sell Saints merchandise, but what if I wanted to print something like this and sell it on the street. There are no images of a fleur-de-lis, and no mention of the word "Saints." Could I do that legally?
1
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:52 pm to sml71
quote:
sml71
Finally someone else with some actual knowledge on the subject. Thank you.
quote:
U.S. District Court's Eastern Division of Louisiana
And more importantly affirmed by the 5th circuit. This is very important because we are (to my knowledge) one of the few circuits with a definitive ruling on this subject. Other areas this might have been more of a gray area.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:13 pm to lapistola
We still need to rememember that "New Orleans Louisiana Saints Limited Partnership" sent a letter in 1988, after registering the trademark, to LA Sec of State giving up all claims to it because WHO DAT, INC had first use by virtue of the song featuring Aaron Neville, et al, chanting Who Dat and singing "When the Saints Go Marching In".
Posted on 1/30/10 at 12:50 am to sml71
quote:
U.S. District Court's Eastern Division of Louisiana.
for an attorney, particularly a federal court specialist, you have a shitty understanding of the titles of federal courts.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 1:11 am to Putty
What do you think the fed in New Orleans is called?
Posted on 1/30/10 at 1:19 am to Jeff
So LSU could go after everything with "Geaux Tigers" printed on it?
Posted on 1/30/10 at 4:05 am to jmarto1
I'm guessing this is close to the same thing-
While in Omaha, they were able to print out bats that said-
Geaux Tigers , but couldn't could produce anything that said LSU Tigers
While in Omaha, they were able to print out bats that said-
Geaux Tigers , but couldn't could produce anything that said LSU Tigers
Posted on 1/30/10 at 8:38 am to RockChalkTiger
quote:
copyright
that's interesting, since this has nothing to do with copyright.
the NFL is completely wrong, and i can explain why, but i'm afraid it would be mostly lost, if the posts in this thread are any indication.
here's the short version: if the nfl is saying that they own TM rights in a fleur de lis marks and the phrase "Who Dat" only when those marks are associated with the team, that is STILL completely wrong. Why? because those marks were in the public domain, one for 100s of years before the saints or football even existed, and the other at least 70 years before the saints existed. they have taken on new meaning as being associated with the saints football organization; however, that does not rescue those marks from their public domain origins.
now if we're talking about a particular design aspect of an iteration of the fleur, then that's different (and could be a copyright issue); but that's clearly not the battle here.
This post was edited on 1/30/10 at 8:44 am
Posted on 1/30/10 at 8:44 am to jembeurt
quote:
This is not Vitter's fault here. The NFL tried, and failed, at trying to stop people from making money on an item that could resemble a part of their property. I am sure that Vitter consulted someone, ie a lawyer, on what was going on.
If that's what you want to believe, fine. The NFL's position has been consistent in this matter. Trademarks typically consist of well defined images, logos, colors and combinations of those things. That's all the NFL was protecting in this case. Not a generic Who Dat. I and others have explained this in various threads, but there are some who choose not to listen to anything but their emotion and preconceived notions. Vitter was full of crap on this one. But if you want to think he's a hero, be my guest.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 8:51 am to McLemore
quote:
here's the short version: if the nfl is saying that they own TM rights in a fleur de lis marks and the phrase "Who Dat" only when those marks are associated with the team, that is STILL completely wrong. Why? because those marks were in the public domain, one for 100s of years before the saints or football even existed, and the other at least 70 years before the saints existed. they have taken on new meaning as being associated with the saints football organization; however, that does not rescue those marks from their public domain origins.
Actually, you can take a generic image that already exista and incorporate it into a mark that is associated with a classification prescribed by the USPTO. Check Kane on Trademark. Pulled mine off the shelf last night for fun.
ETA: If an owner of a mark doesn't take steps to protect it against infringement, they may lose the protections afforded by use and/or registration of the mark.
This post was edited on 1/30/10 at 8:54 am
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:01 am to VOR
i know the NFL's argument, and would obviously make it if i were them. i'm just saying it's a very weak mark to begin with and they haven't taken steps to protect it (until recently), even if it were strong enough to warrant protection.
again, i can make both arguments, but i think i'd win if i were going up against the nfl.
again, i can make both arguments, but i think i'd win if i were going up against the nfl.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:02 am to VOR
quote:
Actually, you can take a generic image that already exista and incorporate it into a mark that is associated with a classification prescribed by the USPTO. Check Kane on Trademark. Pulled mine off the shelf last night for fun. ETA: If an owner of a mark doesn't take steps to protect it against infringement, they may lose the protections afforded by use and/or registration of the mark.
Once again I agree with you. I'll go back to my LSU example. The word Tigers is about as public domain as it comes. In fact, the Louisiana Tigers came from a volunteer company in the Civil War, correct? LSU in no way devise/created/was the first one to use tigers. But they sure as hell have trademark rights over anything in purple in gold that has "Go Tigers" or "Fighting Tigers" on it.
Same thing here. The Saints/NFL did not create the fleur-de-lis or who dat, but if you put them all together and put them in black and gold, they would have a really good case at the very least.
This post was edited on 1/30/10 at 9:03 am
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:03 am to McLemore
and if you back up and look at the "likelihood of consumer confusion" policy behind TM, then you get into a very circular analysis that makes me dizzy.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:04 am to McLemore
quote:
i think i'd win if
don't we all . . .
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:07 am to lapistola
i agree that you have a decent case, but you have to go back to this: is the consumer confused as to which football team the logo/slogan is associated with? of course not. so is it whether it's "genuine merchandise"? If so, then you're still not concerned with confusion over the end product (football team), but rather with the manufacturer of the good (a jersey, a football a helmet), and then the consumer is not concerned with Saints or fleurs or who dats, but with Body Armor, Reebok, Russell, etc.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:07 am to VOR
yup, i guess that's why we get paid (when we do....)
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:08 am to Shankopotomus
quote:yes...and/or using the NFL logo also is what they are talking about...there is nothing wrong with using the words "WHO DAT" by itself...
the story is actually using the gold fleur-di-lis
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:09 am to McLemore
quote:
and if you back up and look at the "likelihood of consumer confusion" policy behind TM, then you get into a very circular analysis that makes me dizzy.
Damn you, Polaroid factors...damn you.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:24 am to lovinLSU
quote:Yeah, that's what the NFL is saying now that the issue has blown up in its face, but that isn't what they were saying a week ago. They harassed a woman selling earrings when one earring said "Who" and the other "Dat", saying that they owned the phrase. No other Saints or NFL trademarks.
there is nothing wrong with using the words "WHO DAT" by itself
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:26 am to RockChalkTiger
quote:
Not surprising, given his "interpretation" of his marraige vows.
Who gives a frick about that???? That is the last thing i am worried about from a politician.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News