- 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
To the people that think the NFL didnt change their position
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:32 pm
Have you seen the original merchandise that was being disputed. Im for big business as much as the next guy...but dont be an idiot. The NFL's 1st position was definately wrong and would have been defeated in court...The letter from the NFL to Vitter was a complete contradiction of their original letters to shop owners.
6
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:36 pm to LakeViewLSU
What did the original letter say?
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:36 pm to LakeViewLSU
quote:
Have you seen the original merchandise that was being disputed. Im for big business as much as the next guy...but dont be an idiot. The NFL's 1st position was definately wrong and would have been defeated in court...The letter from the NFL to Vitter was a complete contradiction of their original letters to shop owners.
just give it up ... If I am selling zulu coconut and claim it to be a New Orleans Saints Who Dat coconut .. I am in violation... I have always took up for people of our area when outsiders say that we are uneducated .. This thing here has changed my opinion.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:40 pm to threeputt
quote:
I have always took up for people of our area when outsiders say that we are uneducated ..
Irony
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:42 pm to Central Tiger
quote:
Irony
Hey I am drunk and it is late 
Anywho - This is the language from the original letter
any combination of design elements (even if not the subject of a federal or state trademark registration), such as team colors, roman numerals and other references to the Saints" are also trademark violations.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:44 pm to threeputt
quote:
just give it up ... If I am selling zulu coconut and claim it to be a New Orleans Saints Who Dat coconut .. I am in violation... I have always took up for people of our area when outsiders say that we are uneducated .. This thing here has changed my opinion.
Its funny to see poster's talk as if they were not idiots....there has already been a precident set on a case like this....it came in favor of the party disputing a who dat traademark
This post was edited on 1/29/10 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:53 pm to LakeViewLSU
I haven't seen either letter. Can you give me the Cliff notes version of how they differ? Thanks.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:56 pm to bosonsrule
I posted some of the first letter in a post in this thread. This is the meat of the second letter:
Contrary to public reports," the letter states, "the NFL has not sought to exclude all uses of the word 'WHO DAT' or the fleur-de-lis logo. Rather, the NFL has sent out narrowly targeted letters, challenging the sale of products bearing the the fleur-de-lis and 'WHO DAT' marks only when those products contain or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints."
Seems like they are saying the same thing to me
Contrary to public reports," the letter states, "the NFL has not sought to exclude all uses of the word 'WHO DAT' or the fleur-de-lis logo. Rather, the NFL has sent out narrowly targeted letters, challenging the sale of products bearing the the fleur-de-lis and 'WHO DAT' marks only when those products contain or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints."
Seems like they are saying the same thing to me
This post was edited on 1/29/10 at 10:57 pm
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:00 pm to threeputt
I think I get it. This:
strikes me as much broader than:
quote:
any combination of design elements
strikes me as much broader than:
quote:
the NFL has sent out narrowly targeted letters, challenging the sale of products bearing the the fleur-de-lis and 'WHO DAT' marks only when those products contain or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints."
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:01 pm to LakeViewLSU
NFL will never beat this. Forget it.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 12:03 am to threeputt
If you read the letter on page one of the first thread on this issue the letter claimed ownership of the phrase who dat.
Now they say her shirt was okay but that she was advertising the saints by having a poster in the shop, they say signs, that's bs.
Now they say her shirt was okay but that she was advertising the saints by having a poster in the shop, they say signs, that's bs.
This post was edited on 1/30/10 at 12:04 am
Posted on 1/30/10 at 12:37 am to threeputt
quote:
Contrary to public reports," the letter states, "the NFL has not sought to exclude all uses of the word 'WHO DAT' or the fleur-de-lis logo. Rather, the NFL has sent out narrowly targeted letters, challenging the sale of products bearing the the fleur-de-lis and 'WHO DAT' marks only when those products contain or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints."
this is the dumbest iteration of a tm argument i've ever read. seriously. any judge in his/her right mind would assess atty's fees against the person making this argument, it is that frivolous. Good God! They basically just admitted the mark is generic and descriptive and in the public domain and yet still claim rights to it in conjunction with their products. if some halfway decent lawyer doesn't shoot this down NOW, then I'll travel and destroy the NFL attys. This is IP 101!
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:44 am to McLemore
" I HAVE ALWAYS TOOK UP"........ 
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:47 am to LakeViewLSU
quote:
The NFL's 1st position was definately wrong and would have been defeated in court...The letter from the NFL to Vitter was a complete contradiction of their original letters to shop owners.
If someone will provide the first letter and the second for a side by side comparison, I will concede the NFL changed its position. But I don't think anyone can do it.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:50 am to McLemore
quote:
They basically just admitted the mark is generic and descriptive and in the public domain and yet still claim rights to it in conjunction with their products. if some halfway decent lawyer doesn't shoot this down NOW, then I'll travel and destroy the NFL attys. This is IP 101!
Dude, sorry. That's just simply incorrect. First, it's a misuse of the term "public domain" which is more appopriate for copyright issues, imo. Second, there are tons of examples where "generic" emblems, etc, are incorporated into a protectable mark.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 9:51 am to Napoleon
quote:
If you read the letter on page one of the first thread on this issue the letter claimed ownership of the phrase who dat.
The first thread I looked at claimed to have a copy of the letter but it was, at most, paraprase of the letter.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 10:05 am to VOR
It's there I posted it. I had put it in as images but they were too big.
Only knowing HTML and not whatever you use here I was unable to make them smaller.
So it is a post I made with two links and nothing else.
It amazes me that you and threeputt haven't read the first letter yet feel so compelled to side with the NFL.
Oh well let me see if I can use the computer, I'm at my brothers and I really don't want to log on with his IP. People get banned for being "alters" for that.
But it's obvious now I will need to put all four letters in one post, or the self proclaimed smart guys won't give it a rest. Not like reading the first page of a thread is that hard.
I mean the original story had the letter linked in it.
Only knowing HTML and not whatever you use here I was unable to make them smaller.
So it is a post I made with two links and nothing else.
It amazes me that you and threeputt haven't read the first letter yet feel so compelled to side with the NFL.
Oh well let me see if I can use the computer, I'm at my brothers and I really don't want to log on with his IP. People get banned for being "alters" for that.
But it's obvious now I will need to put all four letters in one post, or the self proclaimed smart guys won't give it a rest. Not like reading the first page of a thread is that hard.
I mean the original story had the letter linked in it.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 10:07 am to Napoleon
How are the quotes I posted form the 1st and 2nd letter different?
Posted on 1/30/10 at 10:11 am to Napoleon
quote:
NolaZach
Dude, relax. I didn't see the letter in the first thread although I looked. And I went to the story link.
Posted on 1/30/10 at 10:12 am to threeputt
They're just quotes you left out were the mention of who dat was made.
Regardless the shirts never violated the trademarks of the saints. Now they can sell the shirts and have free press.
Everyone is happy.
Except two or three lawyer types here.
Regardless the shirts never violated the trademarks of the saints. Now they can sell the shirts and have free press.
Everyone is happy.
Except two or three lawyer types here.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News