Larry Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Heard on the radio today, that the NFL has supposedly sent out a bunch of Cease and Desist letters, threatening all kinds of dire consequences to people making merchandise that the NFL doesn't want them to be making. Specifically, t-shirts, in black and gold, bearing the fleur de lis and the words "Who Dat?" Now, the radio show pointed out that the phrase "Who Dat?", and the fleur di lis, were both in existence long before the NFL existed. Supposedly, the NFL legal department responded with a press release claiming that the NFL only threatened people who were marketing the shirts using other trademarks which the NFL owns. I kind of thought that, after many, many, years of Tailgate threads dealing with trolls looking to start a fight about the Redskins' trademark, that perhaps the residents of Tailgate might consider themselves qualified to discuss issues involving trademarks of other NFL teams. ---------- My gut says that the NFL may well be morally right on this one. But I'm not certain that they're legally right. And I'm not certain that we should extend the legal umbrella enough to make it legally right. No, the NFL does not own the fleur de lis. The freakin Three Musketeers used it, hundreds of years ago, fer cryin' out loud. Similarly (at least according to the radio, which I believe), the phrase "Who Dat?" came from a very old song, and the NFL doesn't own it, either. But, as I understand it, trademarks grant exclusivity to certain images and things in certain contexts. Apple Computer owns the rights to the use of "Apple" on electronic devices. They don't own the rights to Apple Pie, or to Apple Records. As such, for example, while the NFL doesn't own the fleur de lis, the fleur de lis on a football helmet, in black and gold, absolutely is their property. With trademark, context is important. I think it's a pretty safe bet that people producing t-shirts with the fleur de lis, and the words "Who Dat?", in black and gold, right now, are obviously marketing their shirts to people who are thinking about football. That said, though, I can see a problem with someone prosecuting someone because they produced something which makes people think about something that's trademarked. I think that the people producing the shirts are definitely trying to cash in on the NFL. Coming, at least, very close to using an NFL trademark. (IMO, the fact that they're black and gold makes them even closer to being illegal.) But no, I don't think it should be illegal. Opinions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 The fleur di lis has been used for almost a thousand years. I don't get how they could somehow own it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Engaging in my usual tradition of arguing both sides of an argument: The term "redskin" existed 100 years ago, too. But the NFL absolutely does have the right to demand royalties for every "Washington Redskins" t-shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman#21 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Heard that too, while that news stinks, the NFL prob does have the right to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Oh, as far as I'm aware, anybody has the right to threaten to sue somebody. (Although I do think there are some limitations. I understand that there is a law prohibiting someone from claiming to own a copyright or trademark when they actually don't.) As we're all aware, anybody has the right to actually sue somebody. The question is, is the NFL right? (Legally or morally.) Are these people violating the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Engaging in my usual tradition of arguing both sides of an argument: The term "redskin" existed 100 years ago, too. But the NFL absolutely does have the right to demand royalties for every "Washington Redskins" t-shirt. "Washington Redskins" is not the same as redskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKINS@THEGOALLINE Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Hey commissioner Goodell, Sesame Street called and they want their letters N, F, and L back. Ya greedy *******. :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Hey commissioner Goodell, Sesame Street called and they want their letters N, F, and L back. Ya greedy *******. :pfft: Of course Sesame Street doesn't own "Letter B"...that is the Beatles. Just glad I learned what that thing on the Saints helmet is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Remembering once being told that supposedly, at a Star Trek convention in San Francisco, a Paramount Pictures lawyer handed a Cease and Desist letter to a couple of US Navy sailors who were selling "USS Enterprise" t-shirts and baseball caps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 **** the NFL. You can't own something that outdates you. Using their logic, we shouldn't be able to purchase brown footballs from anyone other than Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 ];7265966']**** the NFL.You can't own something that outdates you. Using their logic' date=' we shouldn't be able to purchase brown footballs from anyone other than Wilson.[/quote'] A trademark grants an exclusive right in a certain context. Apple Computer didn't invent the apple. They did trademark using an apple as a brand name for a computer. Does the NFL have the right to object to a gray t-shirt bearing a large, blue, five-pointed star, (with a white border), and the word "Cowboys"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeerMuscles Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Does the NFL have the right to object to a gray t-shirt bearing a large, blue, five-pointed star, (with a white border), and the word "Cowboys"? That is in effect the Cowboy's logo, so yes; however, the words "Who Dat", how the hell did the NFL get that trademarked or whatever? The NFL needs to "suck it long, and suck it hard", to quote Sean Connery from Celebrity Jeopardy on SNL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Greed has ruined this country and looks like it will continue to ruin this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalSkins Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Does the NFL have the right to object to a gray t-shirt bearing a large, blue, five-pointed star, (with a white border), and the word "Cowboys"? All of humanity has a right to object to an image as vile as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
[[ghost]] Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Does the NFL have the right to object to a gray t-shirt bearing a large, blue, five-pointed star, (with a white border), and the word "Cowboys"? That's a logo. They can copyright that. But they can't copyright a phrase. I can make a bunch of burgundy shirts and write "Hail." on them in gold letters. **** the NFL if they think they can stop me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 That is in effect the Cowboy's logo, so yes; however, the words "Who Dat", how the hell did the NFL get that trademarked or whatever?The NFL needs to "suck it long, and suck it hard", to quote Sean Connery from Celebrity Jeopardy on SNL. ];7266691']That's a logo. They can copyright that. But they can't copyright a phrase. I can make a bunch of burgundy shirts and write "Hail." on them in gold letters. **** the NFL if they think they can stop me. The t-shirts contain the fleur de lis, in black and gold. (Observing that the more time I spend in this thread, the more I migrate towards thinking the NFL is right.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 The t-shirts contain the fleur de lis, in black and gold. (Observing that the more time I spend in this thread, the more I migrate towards thinking the NFL is right.) The Fleur De Lis is typically displayed in gold. It's a lilly. Which is typically yellow. Who Dat was before the Saints phrase. So a gold fleur de lis on a black shirt that says Who Dat...not sure how you can side with the NFL. Throw in the word Saints and I can feel you. Otherwise it's a sham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rdskn4Lyf21 Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 They were busting people at the Pro Bowl selling those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Engaging in my usual tradition of arguing both sides of an argument: This is why Larry never loses an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Paris Hilton trademarked the saying..."That's Hot." I wonder how much I owe her now. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 As long as they don't use the Saints logo I don't see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 As long as they don't use the Saints logo I don't see the problem. That IS the Saints logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngestson Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Oh, as far as I'm aware, anybody has the right to threaten to sue somebody. (Although I do think there are some limitations. I understand that there is a law prohibiting someone from claiming to own a copyright or trademark when they actually don't.) As we're all aware, anybody has the right to actually sue somebody. The question is, is the NFL right? (Legally or morally.) Are these people violating the law? The fleur-de-lis is a bit different, in my mind, than most other graphics in the NFL. As a symbol it's been around hundreds of years so one would think it's in the public domain. As for the right to sue, as you say, anyone can bring a suit. What the NFL can do is simply throw money at keeping the case in the courts for years and years until the smaller folks producing the offending merchandise go out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Kaos Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 So let me get this straight........ If YOU are in charge of assuring a company is profitable (among other things) and you know that there are individuals trying to sidestep your copyrights you wouldnt pursue the matter? I know I would do everything I could to protect my interests and I suspect most of you would do the same if the shoe were on the other foot. Fact is that finding and going after people just like this is their job, they are paid to protect the NFL from just this sort of thing. You can look at it like the big bad company going after the little ol' helpless guy trying to make a dollar all you want but that doesnt make it right. In this case there is no doubt what so ever about who/what the product is targeting. A cease and desist is/was the right thing to do. The funny thing is, let me start a thread proclaiming that I download my music in a "free" manner and some of the same folks that are screaming that the NFL is a baddie would be up in arms that I'm stealing from the musical artists. Copyright infringement is copyright infringement no matter who the offended parties are. my 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 That IS the Saints logo. I thought the whole debate was over "Who Dat". As long as they make shirts that don't have the Saints logo on it, what's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.