Dear Barstool Sports: No You Cannot Sue The NFL For Its Non-Infringing Merchandise. Also, Relax.
from the falling-off-the-stool dept
It has certainly been a turbulent year for the NFL. The league is reeling from ratings declines, accusations of political bias, its own versions of the #MeToo wave that has collided with our larger culture, and a seemingly never ending controversy over how players comport themselves during the National Anthem that essentially works as a feedback loop of outrage on every side helped along by the man holding the highest public office in our union. With that in mind, relatively small intellectual property dust-ups may seem low on the eyeball list for those following the league, but it's still worth pointing out when the league gets IP questions wrong, as it often does.
Yet not every accusation lobbed in its direction is valid and the rather over the top response from one online outlet over the branding of some t-shirts is one that is not. The background on this is that Barstool Sports is a part humor, part satire, part sports blog with a turbulent relationship with Roger Goodell and the NFL. The Boston iteration of the site has been a particularly virulent thorn in the NFL's side and made much of its name when the league suspended Tom Brady for deflating some footballs. The site also pitches a line of t-shirts with the phrase "Saturdays are for the boys" on them, which I suppose is some kind of a nod to college football. Well, the NFL recently came out with a line of "Sundays are for the [blank]" line of shirts, with the blank being each of the 32 NFL teams that famously play games on Sundays. This did not escape Barstool Sports' attention.
But this I cannot stand for. I’m not letting this rat fuck Roger Goodell pull one over on me. I’m not letting him stand at the podium at the Super Bowl, say he’s never heard of Barstool Sports, then start slinging SAFTB gear in the NFL.com store. That’s fucking bullshit and I wouldn’t be a man if I let it slide. I don’t know what I’m gonna do because I’m not entirely sure that this is actionable, as we don’t own every day of the week, but I’ve never let the rules stop me from making a scene before, Roger. I’ll get Charlie Kelly to draw up a C&D in crayon and I’ll go sit my ass in the lobby at Park Ave, a place where I’m banned from enter, again. I’ll have Michael Portnoy Esq bury you up to your eyeballs in paperwork. I’ll start selling so many goddamn NFL copyright infringing t-shirts it’ll make your head spin.
First and foremost: bros, take a breath. Whatever the relationship between Barstool Sports and the NFL, these t-shirts are not some threat to the site's merchandise income. As for the intellectual property question here, there really isn't one. A phrase of this nature, this size, and this level of creative originality isn't going to be the cornerstone of the copyright lawsuit of the century, and that's without taking into account the NFL's large cadre of lawyers. On the trademark front, the phrases are both non-unique enough and sufficiently different so as to wave off any concerns about public confusion. There's just nothing here.
But if the threat of selling copyright infringing merch on Barstool's end isn't some joke, or perhaps even if it is, such statements serve as great evidence for any willfull infringement claims the NFL might want to make against the site in the future. Some of the media coverage has included questioning what the upside for the NFL is in using such a similar phrase, which is fairly silly. The upside is selling the shirts. The real question is: what is the downside? The answer is pretty clearly: there is none.
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: merchandise, saturdays are for the boys, sundays are for the, trademark
Companies: barstool sports, nfl
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
What is the downside, revisited
Personally I no longer give either of them any attention, which is the unintended consequence of their spectacular exhibition of greed, and is now spreading more and more rapidly. This, over time, will be the induction of their own demise. Self fulfilling prophesy self fulfilled. Earn it, deserve it, let it come quickly so that resources may be devoted to something actually worthwhile.
Another downside is that when the current major benefactors of this dastardly scheme realize their own coming demise, they will work to benefit via legal channels of the bankruptcy courts who will pass debts unto others and relieve the 'aggrieved owners' (in bankruptcy, debts may be forgiven to the debtor but the entity providing the asset is still at a loss, or maybe a percentage of their whole is lost).
Certainly a sad case when the 'owners' have nothing of value to own, yet they paid hundreds of millions of dollars to own nothing of any value, or that had value until it didn't, and the creditors are made to pay for the 'owners' failure to see that reduction in value coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bluster and fake outrage
Even Trump critics seem to have fallen into this endless spiral, with perhaps one of the worst examples being the almost-NFL player LaVar Ball, whose ridiculous interview on CNN devolved into some kind of parody of the classic Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First?".
Will people ever realize that these comically absurd loudmouths are just trolling for attention, and should be ignored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bluster and fake outrage
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2017/11/21/lavar-ball-chris-cuomo-intv-full-ctn.cnn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bluster and fake outrage
For attention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have a question
This article is very much helpful. But still I have question on it should I ask here ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have a question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BarBrawl Sportz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't you look like an idiot now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]