- 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 10:42 am to Navtiger1
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:42 am to Navtiger1
quote:
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.
I haven't read an article that provides enough information on the subject, but I think I posted womewhere that a "who dat" standing alone may not have trademark protection. Or a generic fleur de lis. But when combined with black and gold it has the attributes of a protected mark. Actually, I haven't read an entire article yet, but has someone actually registered the mark with the USPTO? One further complication, a mark may become protected by usage even if not registered.
3
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:44 am to VOR
If I were the shop owners, I would only have 2 words for the NFL...BLOW ME!!!!!
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:46 am to StarkvilleTigerFan
quote:
And before you start making legal arguments
Do you have a legal degree..............
Posted on 1/29/10 at 10:49 am to VOR
have you read the letter?
There is a link to it.
They mention the case of LSUv(some company) in which LSU sued a company for using its colors, and won. Kinda saying that black and gold and who dat together with any FDL is copy-right infringement.
I also must state that Fleurty Girl IS paying the NFL its 10% of the offending shirts and IS NOT actually fighting the NFL.
There is a link to it.
They mention the case of LSUv(some company) in which LSU sued a company for using its colors, and won. Kinda saying that black and gold and who dat together with any FDL is copy-right infringement.
I also must state that Fleurty Girl IS paying the NFL its 10% of the offending shirts and IS NOT actually fighting the NFL.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:10 am to Napoleon
quote:
have you read the letter?
yep. so it does appear it is the combination of attributes that constitutes "infringement" in this case.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:23 am to VOR
Yeah.
She agreed with that, but what was picked up in Social Networking, was the NFL claim to "Who Dat". I mean what else do they own?
I love all the attention it is getting, also her sales are waaaaaay up.
She agreed with that, but what was picked up in Social Networking, was the NFL claim to "Who Dat". I mean what else do they own?
I love all the attention it is getting, also her sales are waaaaaay up.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:23 am to Napoleon
quote:
Its obvious that you haven't been listening to the radio or you didn't see the front page of the paper
No I don't speak or read Arabic, but i'm sure there isn't much in the local paper or on the radio about the NFL and local New Orleans Businesses.
quote:
The NFL has never licensed a "Who Dat" shirt, not now or ever?
Do you know this for a fact? If so then she might have a case if she chose to fight it.
Are you sure the NFL has not copy righted the Phrase. If they have then she is wrong like it or not.
You say for a literalist like me...it's a literal argument. It's not figurative...
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:38 am to VOR
"I haven't read an article that provides enough information on the subject, but I think I posted womewhere that a "who dat" standing alone may not have trademark protection. Or a generic fleur de lis. But when combined with black and gold it has the attributes of a protected mark. Actually, I haven't read an entire article yet, but has someone actually registered the mark with the USPTO? One further complication, a mark may become protected by usage even if not registered."
Exactly correct.
Exactly correct.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:43 am to lapistola
quote:
Exactly correct.
Thank you. Sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 11:56 am to VOR
Haha congratulations.
A good example would be a Geaux Tigers shirt with LSU. Did LSU create and/or trademark the "geaux" instead of go thing? Not to my knowledge. But if someone was printing purple shirts with Geaux on it in gold LSU would shut them down in a heartbeat. But if you've got blue shirts with the same thing written in orange, LSU wouldn't touch it.
A good example would be a Geaux Tigers shirt with LSU. Did LSU create and/or trademark the "geaux" instead of go thing? Not to my knowledge. But if someone was printing purple shirts with Geaux on it in gold LSU would shut them down in a heartbeat. But if you've got blue shirts with the same thing written in orange, LSU wouldn't touch it.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 12:03 pm to lapistola
If they have agreed to let her sell her product for 10% fee, then what is the problem? All the buzz this has created is gonna have her sales booming. Seling 20 units a week at 100% or selling 200 a week and giving 10% to the big bad NFL....which one you want?
Posted on 1/29/10 at 1:10 pm to BRfit
quote:
What is the problem?
The NFL claiming to own "Who Dat".
Posted on 1/29/10 at 2:38 pm to Napoleon
quote:
The NFL claiming to own "Who Dat".
Either my reading comprehension completely sucks, or I think you've missed the point. There is no protection for "Who Dat" in a vacuum.
Posted on 1/29/10 at 6:25 pm to VOR
I don't get what your trying to say but it's obvious by the non stop new threads that this is a hot button issue and a NFL reply should be coming soon.
I started this thread a couple a days ago from info from a facebook status update. This morning the Times Picayune ran the story on the front page. Today usatoday.com picked up the story.
This has gotten big fast. The goal is to keep "who dat" in public domain.
I started this thread a couple a days ago from info from a facebook status update. This morning the Times Picayune ran the story on the front page. Today usatoday.com picked up the story.
This has gotten big fast. The goal is to keep "who dat" in public domain.
Posted on 1/31/10 at 9:49 pm to TigerinATL
Do the descendants of Christ get a cut for creating a demand for crucifixes? They are both in the public domain.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News