Major League Baseball Claims Dodgers Still Own Trademark On Brooklyn Logo, Despite Leaving Town 53 Years Ago
from the brooklyn-bums dept
A few folks sent in the story from the NY Daily News saying that the Los Angeles Dodgers had filed a lawsuit against the owners of Brooklyn Burger, for using a version of the old stylized "Brooklyn" logo as part of its own logo:"As MLB, we are obligated by law to protect our trademarks or we are at risk of losing them."Of course, this ignores the bigger point, which is that the Dodgers left Brooklyn in 1957 and haven't used the logo since then. On top of that, it's not at all clear that the Dodger's original trademarked logo would cover food at all. And, of course, it's not as if anyone (moron in a hurry or not) would rush by the Brooklyn Burger restaurant and think "gee, the Dodgers have opened a restaurant!" The whole thing feels like yet another (in a long line of) intellectual property overreaches by Major League Baseball.
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
Filed Under: brooklyn, dodgers, trademark
Companies: brooklyn burger, major league baseball
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How to tell ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to tell ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Use in commerce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Use in commerce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you expect though? People still refer to the NFL Giants as the NY Football Giants. How long has it been since the baseball Giants were in NY? What, 1954?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://shop.baseballhall.org/Don-Sutton-Brooklyn-Dodgers-Cooperstown-Replica-Jersey-_-1915500827_P D.html
I think that they should be forced to field a team in these uniforms once every few years to maintain the trademark. What does it say about teams who have direct food ties like the Phillies and Phillies Franks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're right in one sense. MLB is not responsible, bad parenting is responsible. I love the fact that children are telling their parents what to do these days. If the parent tries to "discipline" the child, all they do is call CPS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
-Passes AC a beer (hidden from the view of 18yo's)-
Amen brother/sister.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja Vu
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tmcases/majleag.htm
Sure, opposing a TM application is different, but c'mon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thus, corporate disobedience...
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can someone PLEASE explain to me WHY this is so? This seems to be the basis of most of the asinine "trademark" lawsuits. It seems to me you should either have protection for "X" amount of years or you don't. Maybe I'm being far too simplistic but I would guess that if things were better defined it would cut out many frivolous lawsuits, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, at the end of the day, it is pretty stupid. People recognize this evolution and can handle it. Eventually, you may have to tag something with 'Original' to note that you started the use of the term. In addition, you can issue anyone a free license for use of your term and suddenly you do not have a problem. This is just the MLB doing a money grab again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brooklyn logo
1. Do something about costs, such as forcing someone bringing a lawsuit (if MLB does) in such a case to pay all fees and a penalty to the injured party, and
2. Provide a pretrial test so that abuse like this would never even get into the courts!
At this time, large entity IP is becoming a very bad joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subsidies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And even if they did think this, how would it cause harm, financial or otherwise, to Major League Baseball? Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: TM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MLB Trademarks
Think I will trademark "America" and sue everyone using it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. While you generally cannot trademark a geographic city name, you can trademark a distinctive style of writing that name. Every sports team and College or University does it in some form or another, like an interlocking LA or NY or old Boston B or the style of print. And you want that to be the case, or else the market would be even more flooded than it already is with crappy knock-offs of the trademark.
2. The Dodgers use the Brooklyn mark extensively in commerce. Look at the Cooperstown Collection apparel. Someone posted that they should be forced to use it on the field. They have, repeatedly, including at Old Timers functions and Hall of Fame games. One of the reasons many sports teams have been using flashback or throwback uniforms (like the Jets using Titans stuff) is to establish that they still use their old trademarks.
3. Why do you think the burger place used the distinctive Brooklyn script? Because they want to specifically reference and enjoy the benefit of all the good will the baseball team generated with that logo. That is not right. The Dodgers have invested a ton of money generating that. Shouldn't they be entitled to protect it? The burger joint is free to use another print style and create its own good will; don't try to take a free ride on someone else's.
4. Someone posted that Baseball should license the burger joint to use the logo. How do you know that they haven't made that offer? That is common in circumstances like this. Maybe the burger joint rejected it? Or refused to maintain certain quality standards, or not sell t-shirts that with the Brooklyn script, etc., etc. Don't jump on the team unless you know the entire background.
5. Trademark holders are forced to take action when someone tries to trademark a similar logo. If they let everyone use the trademark and did not police and protect it, you would jump on them for not taking sufficient steps to keep it disinctive (and the law would agree with you). You can't have it both ways -- criticize them for not protecting it and then criticize them for protecting it. Nor can they wait. What if the burger joint is successful and opens another and then another and then another burger joint, and then the Dodgers take action. Then you would argue that they slept on their rights and it isn't fair to the burger joint because they have now invested in building a name and market using the name.
6. The decision in the prior lawsuit involving MLB and the Brooklyn Dodgers logo linked to above was VACATED by the court, meaning that it was withdrawn, is not binding, and has no value as precedent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brooklyn Burger
Makes no sense to oppose the use of the icon.
It's not like it's branded by MLB or the Brooklyn Dodgers.
If it was in every day use, ok, but that's not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]