MLB Drops Trademark Opposition Against WalletHub For 'W' Logo After WalletHub Bows At The MLB Altar
from the petty-stuff dept
You may recall that several months back we wrote about Major League Baseball getting into a trademark dispute with Evolution Finance, who operates a website called WalletHub. The reason for the dispute was that WalletHub's logo was a white "W" on a green background, which MLB thought was too similar to symbols used by the Washington Nationals and Chicago Cubs teams. That Evolution Finance wasn't in even remotely the same industry as two major league baseball teams is a fact that appeared to escape MLB, as the league actually had the stones to claim that customers might be confused between the "W" symbols. Adding to the silliness of it all was the simple nature of the logos.
The top left image is a registered logo for the Washington Nationals baseball team, the bottom left is the registered "W" flag the Chicago Cubs fly whenever they win a game, and the logo on the right is WalletHub's. Yes they all look somewhat similar...because they're all basically just the letter "w." Similarity or no, the idea that WalletHub's logo might cause a human person with a human brain to think that it was associated with Major League Baseball requires the kind of thinking that I'm not capable of.
But all has ended well, it appears. MLB has agreed to drop its opposition to WalletHub's trademark application after the latter agreed to amend the application to absolutely needlessly clarify that it wasn't a baseball team.
The addition of a single sentence ended a lengthy period of negotiations over trademark infringement allegations over how the letter "W" was used in logos between D.C.-based Evolution Finance's financial information company WalletHub, the Washington Nationals and Major League Baseball. With that, MLB's complaint was dismissed July 14.If pettiness were a sport, MLB's lawyers would be winning the pennant. Honestly, this sounds more like a legal team extracting some kind of action out of an opponent simply to justify its own existence rather than an action with any actual legal interest. But, hey, trademark, amirite?
Evolution Finance’s original filing said it was “creating an on-line community for users seeking financial information to participate in discussions, get feedback from their peers, read and customize their news” and other services. But the new trademark application also adds “all the foregoing not relating to baseball or softball or to a baseball or softball team, league, mascot or stadium.”
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: baseball, trademark, w
Companies: chicago cubs, mlb, wallethub, washington nationals
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Legal Staffs and Armies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legal Staffs and Armies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"W*"
"* Note: not a baseball team."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the lawyers thought:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walgreens Nationals
https://myboyfriendlikesbaseball.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/walgreens-nationals2.jpg
(I’d make a joke about the Cubs not having much occasion to display a W, except they’re doing pretty well this year.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Walgreens Nationals
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Walgreens Nationals
I've always liked the Cubs, btw, but then I like the Mets too, so what's that worth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... and they somehow don't have a problem with each other? Two teams - two baseball teams - sport the letter "W" with roughly the same choice of colors ("blue over white" vs "white over blue")... and they both have a problem not with each other but a completely unrelated company (a financial one) that uses the same letter with a different color choice.
That's not a trademark issue. It's clearly a "too much time to waste" issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should have added a second sentence
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"the kind of thinking that I'm not capable of"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, hey, trademark, amirite?
How much did this silly mess cost, bottom line? Who lost money (and time & effort), who gained money (lawyers), and what does society gain from entrail stirring episodes like this? Multiply by how many times per year !@#$ like this happens.
So much static in the system, very much ado over nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]