Comments on: Who Dat: Not Going To Be The Popular Opinion But… http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044 Sat, 04 Sep 2010 16:46:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: joejoejoe http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1387 joejoejoe Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:23:45 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1387 If you do a search for black+gold+fleur+de+lis the first Saints logo you get is only the 29th hit. Unless it's an exact knockoff of the Saints logo I'm not sure even a generic black and gold fleur de lis associated is something you can trademark outside of very narrow direct knockoffs of the Saints/NFL logo. http://bit.ly/bzIQBe Fleurs de lis have been around for 1500 years. 'Who Dat' is older than the game of American football. I don't know trademark law but it doesn't seem like the NFL or the Saints have a strong case. If you do a search for black+gold+fleur+de+lis the first Saints logo you get is only the 29th hit. Unless it’s an exact knockoff of the Saints logo I’m not sure even a generic black and gold fleur de lis associated is something you can trademark outside of very narrow direct knockoffs of the Saints/NFL logo.

http://bit.ly/bzIQBe

Fleurs de lis have been around for 1500 years. ‘Who Dat’ is older than the game of American football. I don’t know trademark law but it doesn’t seem like the NFL or the Saints have a strong case.

]]> By: JLM http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1386 JLM Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:44:51 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1386 The NFL may or may not own a specific Fleur de Lis style, and/or use of the phrase if they can prove trademark. However, based on the picture I found of the Fleurty Girl T-shirt that led to the cease and desist order, the NFL is going FAR beyond anything they might possibly own. http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wirestory?id=9701026&page=2 The NFL may or may not own a specific Fleur de Lis style, and/or use of the phrase if they can prove trademark. However, based on the picture I found of the Fleurty Girl T-shirt that led to the cease and desist order, the NFL is going FAR beyond anything they might possibly own.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wirestory?id=9701026&page=2

]]> By: rickacrossdariver http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1385 rickacrossdariver Sat, 30 Jan 2010 01:39:56 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1385 looks like you were on the money. http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/01/who_dat_nation_1_nfl_0.html vitty looks like a hero ,that sucks. looks like you were on the money.

http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2010/01/who_dat_nation_1_nfl_0.html

vitty looks like a hero ,that sucks.

]]> By: rickacrossdariver http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1384 rickacrossdariver Sat, 30 Jan 2010 00:19:51 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1384 varg , thanks for putting my thoughts on this matter into a readable and cognizant way. i would also like to thank the nfl for telling benson there was no way he was gonna pull out after katrina. that bet seems to have paid off. im no fan of big biz as i have allways worked for small mom and pop joints. that being said i am also no fan of bashing just for the sake of bashing. great post my friend. varg , thanks for putting my thoughts on this matter into a readable and cognizant way.

i would also like to thank the nfl for telling benson there was no way he was gonna pull out after katrina.

that bet seems to have paid off.

im no fan of big biz as i have allways worked for small mom and pop joints.

that being said i am also no fan of bashing just for the sake of bashing.

great post my friend.

]]> By: Varg http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1383 Varg Fri, 29 Jan 2010 23:29:47 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1383 I think they would need to convince a jury that the black and gold clothes with the FDL closely enough resembled their product. But (as I understand it) they aren't trying to own the "who dat" phrase outright, only its use with FDLs and Saints colors, the whole package. But it is getting hysterical now and people are acting as if folks can't even SAY Who Dat. Then it gets used as a political tool. The t-shirt shops need to talk to their lawyers, see if the case is a winnable and if they are in the right, proceed. I am pulling for them. I hope the NFL relents. If they don't, I am sure many more t-shirts can be sold as a result of all the shenanigans. Like maybe "no fun league" shirts. Just don't use stars or red, white and blue. But it's a little weird out there right now. Perhaps it's good so the team can get away from that "happy to be here" notion about the Super Bowl. I think they would need to convince a jury that the black and gold clothes with the FDL closely enough resembled their product.

But (as I understand it) they aren’t trying to own the “who dat” phrase outright, only its use with FDLs and Saints colors, the whole package. But it is getting hysterical now and people are acting as if folks can’t even SAY Who Dat. Then it gets used as a political tool.

The t-shirt shops need to talk to their lawyers, see if the case is a winnable and if they are in the right, proceed. I am pulling for them. I hope the NFL relents. If they don’t, I am sure many more t-shirts can be sold as a result of all the shenanigans. Like maybe “no fun league” shirts. Just don’t use stars or red, white and blue.

But it’s a little weird out there right now. Perhaps it’s good so the team can get away from that “happy to be here” notion about the Super Bowl.

]]> By: Cade Roux http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1382 Cade Roux Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:46:13 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1382 You cannot copyright a color or a phrase. Copyright protection is automatic at time of creation, does not need to be registered and does not need to be asserted/enforced for protection to remain in place - this comment is copyrighted, for instance, as is your blog post. Any particular artwork related to the logo would be protected by copyright, but each individual artwork would be copyrighted. Using a book character in a work of your own would be a copyright issue. Drawing the Saints logo yourself in the same style is not a copyright violation, but it would be a trademark issue. This is a trademark/word mark issue. Trademarks do NOT have to be registered and they do have to be used and enforced to be protected from infringement. If a trademark is not used or enforced, public usage can cause it to me no longer accepted as a trademark. They asserted the who dat phrase as a trademark after it was already in common use. That is not unheard of - cf. Microsoft Windows. However, that does not stop people in other business or other sports calling their team the Saints (the Southampton football club in England has been known as the Saints for many more years). Unfortunately, because the phrase was in common use prior to their claim, it severely weakens their claim to "own" it. The Saints' Fleur is a trademark, as is their overall color scheme combined with their logos. However, that only applies within their business domain. It is difficult to see that they can assert trademark infringement over all black and gold clothing which includes a fleur. You cannot copyright a color or a phrase. Copyright protection is automatic at time of creation, does not need to be registered and does not need to be asserted/enforced for protection to remain in place – this comment is copyrighted, for instance, as is your blog post.

Any particular artwork related to the logo would be protected by copyright, but each individual artwork would be copyrighted. Using a book character in a work of your own would be a copyright issue. Drawing the Saints logo yourself in the same style is not a copyright violation, but it would be a trademark issue.

This is a trademark/word mark issue. Trademarks do NOT have to be registered and they do have to be used and enforced to be protected from infringement. If a trademark is not used or enforced, public usage can cause it to me no longer accepted as a trademark.

They asserted the who dat phrase as a trademark after it was already in common use. That is not unheard of – cf. Microsoft Windows. However, that does not stop people in other business or other sports calling their team the Saints (the Southampton football club in England has been known as the Saints for many more years).

Unfortunately, because the phrase was in common use prior to their claim, it severely weakens their claim to “own” it.

The Saints’ Fleur is a trademark, as is their overall color scheme combined with their logos. However, that only applies within their business domain. It is difficult to see that they can assert trademark infringement over all black and gold clothing which includes a fleur.

]]> By: Varg http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1381 Varg Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:19:07 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1381 History lesson about the FDL aside, it's not the point. The point is Lions, Patriots and Forty-Niners also existed long before the NFL but once a team depicts them in a certain style, that style then becomes owned by the NFL. So Google image search for FDL turns up these... http://images.google.com/images?q=fleur%20de%20lis&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi For Saints logo turns up these... http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&um=1&sa=1&q=saints+logo&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g7g-m3&start=0&social=false So there is a distinction. But the question is "Who Dat" and I haven't seen where the NFL is exercising any copyright claim on the phrase independent of it's use with FDLs and the colors black and gold. Now David Vitter is jumping in to exploit the situation and the whole thing has just jumped the shark. History lesson about the FDL aside, it’s not the point. The point is Lions, Patriots and Forty-Niners also existed long before the NFL but once a team depicts them in a certain style, that style then becomes owned by the NFL.

So Google image search for FDL turns up these…

http://images.google.com/images?q=fleur%20de%20lis&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

For Saints logo turns up these…

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&um=1&sa=1&q=saints+logo&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g7g-m3&start=0&social=false

So there is a distinction.

But the question is “Who Dat” and I haven’t seen where the NFL is exercising any copyright claim on the phrase independent of it’s use with FDLs and the colors black and gold.

Now David Vitter is jumping in to exploit the situation and the whole thing has just jumped the shark.

]]> By: mominem http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044&cpage=1#comment-1380 mominem Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:52:25 +0000 http://thechicory.com/blog/?p=1044#comment-1380 I am pretty sure the NFL is making a money grubbing club of billionaire serial extortionists. They are attempting to take of every to take over every penny of the national economy. This latest effort is an attempt to monopolize a historic event by purposely confusing the issue. IF they had a specific objection they should have stated it clearly but chose not to. They chose to make a vague, expansive and intimidating statement. Not to mention that if it were their trade mark they have a duty to defend it. Many people have been using these symbols loudly and pubicaly in this way for years, if it were a trademark they are too late to enforce it. With regard to the fleur-de-lis it has been a symbol of the French Monarchy since at least the 12th century and a symbol of Louisiana and New Orleans since its founding. The Saints used our symbol and now want to charge people for their appropriation of our own symbol. I am pretty sure the NFL is making a money grubbing club of billionaire serial extortionists. They are attempting to take of every to take over every penny of the national economy.

This latest effort is an attempt to monopolize a historic event by purposely confusing the issue. IF they had a specific objection they should have stated it clearly but chose not to. They chose to make a vague, expansive and intimidating statement. Not to mention that if it were their trade mark they have a duty to defend it. Many people have been using these symbols loudly and pubicaly in this way for years, if it were a trademark they are too late to enforce it.

With regard to the fleur-de-lis it has been a symbol of the French Monarchy since at least the 12th century and a symbol of Louisiana and New Orleans since its founding. The Saints used our symbol and now want to charge people for their appropriation of our own symbol.

]]>