- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
NFL responds to Vitter
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:12 pm
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:12 pm
9
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:14 pm to chinesebandits58
this whole thing is stupid.
Good for the NFL for protecting their partners.
That's my take on it.
Good for the NFL for protecting their partners.
That's my take on it.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:22 pm to AlejandroInHouston
F U Vitter........dumbass
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:22 pm to chinesebandits58
I agree with the NFL on this one. You can't just take the brand image from someone else and start using it to sell your merchandise without their permission or reimbursing them for using their image.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:22 pm to AlejandroInHouston
that actually makes sense and I can see the NFL stepping in if it says Saints.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:23 pm to chinesebandits58
PWNED!
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:24 pm to nino2469
vitter and his people knew this as well. Just a lame pub stunt on their part
"hey we're sticking up for the little guy"
"hey we're sticking up for the little guy"
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:30 pm to chinesebandits58
Am i legally able to sell a shirt with the phrase WHO DAT? on it?
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:32 pm to Jizzy08
Yes you can.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:35 pm to Jizzy08
quote:
Am i legally able to sell a shirt with the phrase WHO DAT? on it?
If it only only says "who dat," sure.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:36 pm to tke_swamprat
I think that's what the whole issue was...........The words WHO DAT
Posted on 1/29/10 at 7:47 pm to jralspanky
BOOM! Obviously the NFL's people understand copyright law a lot better than a serving US Senator.
Not surprising, given his "interpretation" of his marraige vows.
Not surprising, given his "interpretation" of his marraige vows.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:02 pm to RockChalkTiger
One shop owner was told to not sell earrings that said "who" on one and "dat" on the other. Explain that. Looks like the NFL tried to bully and had to back down a little. Just because they released a response saying one thing, it is inconsistent with what shop owners are saying.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:10 pm to chinesebandits58
The NFL claimed to own who dat, now it says it doesn't? The shirts in question had no saints logo.
Does the NFL claim to own who dat or not?that is the question
Does the NFL claim to own who dat or not?that is the question
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:21 pm to DoubleMove
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.
All because you don't like the man, doesn't mean he is stupid. He stood up for the people of New Orleans, which is what he is supposed to do for them.
All because you don't like the man, doesn't mean he is stupid. He stood up for the people of New Orleans, which is what he is supposed to do for them.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:31 pm to Napoleon
Who Dat + Fleur de Lis + Black and Gold Scheme=SAINTS. Whether or not it is the Saints Fleur de Lis is irrelevant, because we all know the intent of the shirt. That is infringement. These people are piggy backing the Saints success and brand for profit. The NFL is protecting its assets.
This post was edited on 1/29/10 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:35 pm to ajs008
Okay then find me an official NFL who dat shirt......
It was never meant to be official, just a fan thing. Since the NFL doesn't make who day shirts ...yet.
Though now the shirt in question is legal and she is probably going to start printing again after she takes down her saints poster since that "advertising"
It was never meant to be official, just a fan thing. Since the NFL doesn't make who day shirts ...yet.
Though now the shirt in question is legal and she is probably going to start printing again after she takes down her saints poster since that "advertising"
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:55 pm to Napoleon
I found that one. I am sure since the Saints adopted the phrase they have had officially licensed shirts sold with Who Dat on them. Establishing commerce also helps establish trademark ownership.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:14 pm to chinesebandits58
Ok...I admit that I am new to this whole "who dat" controversy. I admit that I do not know the specifics of this dispute.
However, I do know quite a few specifics of trademark law...I used to be an attorney for the United States Patent and Tradmark Office.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the NFL asserting a claim to "who dat". In fact, depending on the NFL's licensing agreements with its teams, I think it would be absolutely "fire the NFL's lawyers for malpractice" absurd for the NFL to do nothing to protect its rights to the phrase. If the NFL hasn't done so to this point, I'm stunned.
It is commonly used in commerce, it has secondary meaning (a clear association with one of the league's franchises) and is therefore "distinctive".
Simply put, it is a valuable revenue stream that could be lost if the NFL did not police its rights to the phrase.
I recommend reading the decision in The Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural College, et. al vs. Smack Apparel Company, et. al. for an excellent overview of trademark law as it applies to sports teams' colors and logo schemes. It's even a decision from the U.S. District Court's Eastern Division of Louisiana.
However, I do know quite a few specifics of trademark law...I used to be an attorney for the United States Patent and Tradmark Office.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the NFL asserting a claim to "who dat". In fact, depending on the NFL's licensing agreements with its teams, I think it would be absolutely "fire the NFL's lawyers for malpractice" absurd for the NFL to do nothing to protect its rights to the phrase. If the NFL hasn't done so to this point, I'm stunned.
It is commonly used in commerce, it has secondary meaning (a clear association with one of the league's franchises) and is therefore "distinctive".
Simply put, it is a valuable revenue stream that could be lost if the NFL did not police its rights to the phrase.
I recommend reading the decision in The Board of Supervisors of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural College, et. al vs. Smack Apparel Company, et. al. for an excellent overview of trademark law as it applies to sports teams' colors and logo schemes. It's even a decision from the U.S. District Court's Eastern Division of Louisiana.
This post was edited on 1/29/10 at 9:16 pm
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:28 pm to chinesebandits58
hmmm, if whats in the letter is true then the story is actually using the gold fleur-di-lis not the phrase Who Dat...
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News