- 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
re: The NFL owns Who Dat??
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:31 am to TigerinATL
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:31 am to TigerinATL
quote:
Would these tshirt vendors even be selling a Who Dat shirt if the NFL and Saints hadn't created the demand for them? Why shouldn't they get their cut for creating the market?
Exactly. LSU does this ALL the time and you don't hear people bitching about it. LSU's trademark office actually has employees that go around on gamedays looking for people selling unlicensed shirts and shuts them down.
1
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:34 am to lapistola
Yeah, all of this griping makes us look like a bunch of idiots.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:36 am to Sophandros
Legal precedent?
Should the dispute rise to the level of litigation, there may already be legal precedent.
In 1983 Monistere's company, Who Dat Inc., sued Tee's Unlimited for distributing white and yellow T-shirts with black lettering that read: "Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints." Who Dat Inc., contended Tee's Unlimited had infringed on its copyright.
Tee's Unlimited argued that the phrase made popular with Saints fans through a song was in the public domain.
A judge ruled that neither side had exclusive rights to the phrase and both were allowed to sell shirts using it.
Should the dispute rise to the level of litigation, there may already be legal precedent.
In 1983 Monistere's company, Who Dat Inc., sued Tee's Unlimited for distributing white and yellow T-shirts with black lettering that read: "Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints." Who Dat Inc., contended Tee's Unlimited had infringed on its copyright.
Tee's Unlimited argued that the phrase made popular with Saints fans through a song was in the public domain.
A judge ruled that neither side had exclusive rights to the phrase and both were allowed to sell shirts using it.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:47 am to jralspanky
No.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 8:50 am to jralspanky
quote:
A judge ruled that neither side had exclusive rights to the phrase and both were allowed to sell shirts using it.
I can't find the case but I would assume that he ruled that way because neither of them had secondary meaning which the Saints/NFL do have here.
Another legal precedent would be LSU v. Smack Apparel where LSU kept Smack Apparel from printing shirts that didn't say LSU or Tigers anywhere but used purple and gold print. And that case comes from the 5th Circuit.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:14 am to Navtiger1
quote:Overstepping their bounds. Over-reaching. It is presumptuous of the NFL to think they have the authority to claim this as their own.
Why can't people understand the NFL is a business? They are trying to make money. If they allowed everyone to use their trademarks for profit they would lose vast amounts of income.
This wreaks of dictatorial arrogance. What really worries me is that there seems to be no formal rebuttal to the NFL's assertion. Not sure where that rebuttal would come from...... a group of merchants perhaps (and an attorney who wants some free advertising exposure)?
This post was edited on 1/29/10 at 9:17 am
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:35 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Overstepping their bounds. Over-reaching. It is presumptuous of the NFL to think they have the authority to claim this as their own.
When used the way it is on the shirt in question it is not overstepping their bounds, over-reaching, or presumptuous. The shirt in question uses a saints saying, the saints’ colors, and the saint’s logo...only the # sign is not associated with the saints. This is clearly a store making a profit off of an NFL team and its trademarks.
If the shirt was green and said who dat there might not be an argument, but it isn't.
Hell many NCAA schools were suing Budweiser over college team colors being used on bud light cans in the area of their schools. How is this any different? The saints are a brand and when someone is profiting from your brand you deserve a cut. That is business.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:46 am to Navtiger1
What if you don't make a profit on such items. Sell them at cost, just to piss the NFL off. I agree that the NFL didn't give a shite until the Saints go to the super bowl.
Sounds like they don't want to spend the money up front to liscense all these colors, slogans, figures, etc, and just wait until the time comes and step in.
Sounds like they don't want to spend the money up front to liscense all these colors, slogans, figures, etc, and just wait until the time comes and step in.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 9:53 am to VernonPLSUfan
quote:
What if you don't make a profit on such items
They don't care they still want their cut. Even if their cut comes out of your pocket.
They were licensed before now...they just didn't care to enforce them when they only sold 10 units a year...now that it's in the thousands of units they see the $ slipping out of their pockets.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:01 am to Navtiger1
It's a business (as I was reminded when I stated why I could give a shite about the saints given Benson's threat to leave). Keep supporting the business.
Who dat say dey gonna beat them Los Angeles Diablos.
Who dat say dey gonna beat them Los Angeles Diablos.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:04 am to VernonPLSUfan
it just sicking me that they mask themselves as as ambassadors and repreesintives of the city. soaking up and perpetuating the world wide image that nfl(saints) are some how intertwined with the city and then do this kind of stuff. to locally owned businesses. we should make it abundantly clear that though we have an obsession and pledge unwavering allegiance to the saints as a team. we have no allegiance to the nfl. they are an evil corporate monopoly and we wish they would stop exploiting our cities hardships for their own monetary gain.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:08 am to Navtiger1
quote:It appears that the NFL paints this with a broad brush and is not specific regarding how the "Who Dat" is applied. They are laying claim to the expression "Who Dat". Yes?
When used the way it is on the shirt in question it is not overstepping their bounds, over-reaching, or presumptuous.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:09 am to TigerinATL
Guys the bottom line is this, and this is the source of fans ire.
THE NFL DOES NOT SELL A SINGLE WHO DAT SHIRT, NOT NOW OR EVER. THE ONLY PEOPLE SELLING "WHO DAT" ON A SHIRT ARE LOCAL COMPANIES, AND NOW, NOW THE NFL SAYS NO. HER SHIRT CAME OUT IN AUGUST, BACK WHEN WE WERE PICKED THIRD IN THE NFC SOUTH.
THERE IS NO NFL WHO DAT SHIRTS.
THE NFL DOES NOT SELL A SINGLE WHO DAT SHIRT, NOT NOW OR EVER. THE ONLY PEOPLE SELLING "WHO DAT" ON A SHIRT ARE LOCAL COMPANIES, AND NOW, NOW THE NFL SAYS NO. HER SHIRT CAME OUT IN AUGUST, BACK WHEN WE WERE PICKED THIRD IN THE NFC SOUTH.
THERE IS NO NFL WHO DAT SHIRTS.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:15 am to Navtiger1
quote:
the saints logo
The Saints only have one FDL: she uses the one from the flag of New Orleans.
Sure the shirt pays homage to the saints. It does not use the teams logos or the official gold.
Though again, if the NFL "owns" Who Dat, then why have they never made a "Who Dat" shirt.
Why because it wasn't profitable until now.
Also storyville has been making Saints shirts since the beginning, same as Fleurty Girl. When it started as a small company only advertised by Facebook, the shirt in question was one of the original five. Back in pre-season.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:21 am to Napoleon
quote:
the bottom line is this
its business like it or not
quote:
the source of fans ire
your, her, some fans...not all.
quote:
THE NFL DOES NOT SELL A SINGLE WHO DAT SHIRT
The NFL does not sell ANY shirt. They License the rights to use their teams logos, colors, and images on merchandise.
quote:
THE ONLY PEOPLE SELLING "WHO DAT" ON A SHIRT ARE LOCAL COMPANIES
Disagree I have seen Who Dat outside of LA.
quote:
HER SHIRT CAME OUT IN AUGUST
According to the NFL their copy right came out before August.
quote:
WHEN WE WERE PICKED THIRD IN THE NFC SOUTH
They are only being dicks about it now because of the recent success sales and knock off merchandise has increased.
I understand you have a personal relationship with this person, but the fact is unless she fights it in court the NFL is right. The question is does she profit enough from that particular shirt to fight it?
The fact is this is no different then pirated movies and CD's it is the same concept. If she and others who are not licensed by the NFL choose to sell this they do so at the risk of legal action, or they can take legal action against the NFL if they feel they have the right to use the phrase or images.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:22 am to Sophandros
quote:
No.
No what ?
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated:
A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:32 am to jralspanky
quote:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated:
A judicial precedent attaches a specific legal consequence to a detailed set of facts in an adjudged case or judicial decision, which is then considered as furnishing the rule for the determination of a subsequent case involving identical or similar material facts and arising in the same court or a lower court in the judicial hierarchy
Actually I think the US supreme Court Just ruled that precedent was irrelevant when there was dissension to the ruling. I.E. campaign finance.
And before you start making legal arguments...not it did not officially rule this, although it did overturn its own ruling ignoring precedent
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:34 am to umpa23
quote:
then do this kind of stuff. to locally owned businesses.
What kind of stuff? Create demand for a product the local merchant is selling? It does sound like the NFL's claim on Who Dat is tenuous at best, but quit acting like the big bad NFL is stealing something the local business created all on their own. The local business is benefiting from something the NFL and Saints created.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:34 am to Napoleon
quote:It's my understanding that you cannot use a trademark, logo or proprietary asset of another person or company for commercial purposes.
THERE IS NO NFL WHO DAT SHIRTS.
That's what the NFL is claiming. You can't use it for commercial purposes period - because it belongs to them (or so they claim).
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:39 am to Navtiger1
The fact is they don't own who dat.
Never have never will, and if you don't think more than "some" fans are worked up. Its obvious that you haven't been listening to the radio or you didn't see the front page of the paper.
For a literalist like you: The NFL has never licensed a "Who Dat" shirt, not now or ever? How can they claim something they did not create, nor ever use.
No personal relationship, I know the girl and went to school with her. I support her business, but more so I support "our" the fans ownership of Who Dat.
Never have never will, and if you don't think more than "some" fans are worked up. Its obvious that you haven't been listening to the radio or you didn't see the front page of the paper.
For a literalist like you: The NFL has never licensed a "Who Dat" shirt, not now or ever? How can they claim something they did not create, nor ever use.
No personal relationship, I know the girl and went to school with her. I support her business, but more so I support "our" the fans ownership of Who Dat.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News