It's The Super Bowl Of Trademark Misuse!
from the hurray! dept
Last month we wrote about how the Olympics, beyond just trying to sue anyone who used the word Olympics, was also trying to get laws passed in the UK that would grant extra trademark protections, even allowing the Olympics to control all advertising in the vicinity of the event. In the comments, someone noted the similarity to
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Seriously, Fair Use is A Gray Place
I think protecting one's intellectual property is important - but not at the risk of endangering folks who have no vested interest in the success or failure of the marque.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously, Fair Use is A Gray Place
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geez, What Do You Expect?
Don't get me wrong...I'm not some San Francisco lefty with long hair and Daddy's trust fund griping about corporate fascists and eating Tofu while those T-bills Mommy bought for me gain interest. However, there's far too much commercialization of sprots going on, and the Final Showdown is the ultimate example. But the league's actions should hardly be a surprise when everything from the coin toss to the awarding of the Ombardilay Ophytray is sponsored. Even the first down line has Mr. AOL on it, for Pete's sake!
The real question is: Are those sponsors cunning or chumps? Everybody makes a big deal about who advertises during the Booper Soul, but I'm more intrigued by who DOESN'T. Coke, Nike, American Express, Exxon...the list goes on. Sure, Bud and Pepsi will spend a gazillion dollars for a 30 second comedy bit that will increase their sales 0.000000001%, but I think the really shrewd people are those who pass this one by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Geez, What Do You Expect?
Kudos to you.....
Absolutly brilliant analysis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Olympics...
Well, maybe not all the way back, I'd rather not watch nude wrestling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop the insanity!
I was over in Detroit this past Sunday and there is some clever billboard advertising around the vicinity of Ford Field, such as "Super Game, Super City". Gee, I wonder what they are talking about ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
12th Man Trademark??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
12th man
Texas A&M University recently filed for a restraining order against the Seattle Seahawks. The Seahawks use the term "the 12th man" to refer to their fans, but Texas A&M has trademarked the phrase. The trademark was claimed in 1990 and the University has been using it since the 1920's, but the Seahawk's use of the term goes back to 1984.
The latest news is that the dispute is on hold until after the Superb... uh, Big Game This Sunday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
The issue is that advertisers using the phrase Super Bowl are attempting to make a profit by using the NFL's mark. It also intimates that the advertiser is sanctioned by the NFL.
The other issue is that the NFL wants to be able to charge people a hell of a lot of money to be the "official" whatever of the Super Bowl. How can they justify those fees if any advertiser can latch onto the Super Bowl name?
I think you'd do the same thing.
-jim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Everyone has a point, but it's not completely one-sided. Perhaps mostly, but not completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
This is a bogus issue. The point of trademark has nothing to do with stopping others from profiting. It has only to do with preventing others from profiting in misleading ways. If it's not misleading, then it's not a trademark issue.
It also intimates that the advertiser is sanctioned by the NFL.
Uh... why? I don't think most people assume that if you MENTION "super bowl" that you were officially sanctioned.
The other issue is that the NFL wants to be able to charge people a hell of a lot of money to be the "official" whatever of the Super Bowl. How can they justify those fees if any advertiser can latch onto the Super Bowl name?
Well, yeah. Of course that's the real issue, but that's not a reason to misuse trademarks. That's not what trademarks are for. If it is, then you've just destroyed competition. Based on your reasoning, if I'm a pizza store owner, and someone opens up a pizza store next door, I can sue him for trademark violation, because it makes it more difficult for me to charge more for my official pizza.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]