OT: Oh, good! Now we're trademarking numbers
- Thread starter DJ Spanky
- Start date
Agreed. Trademarking uniform numbers is dumb. I don’t even think of Aikman when I hear #8. Too many great players wore it. I guess it’s smart to be the first to do it just in case you can profit from it.
Even #23 I think of Mattingly since he wore it before Jordan.
Sorry, when I think of #8 I think Dale Earnhardt Jr . And I don't even follow NASCAR
You might be one of the few there. Even though I wouldn't think that is of consequence to you.
I thought this was a goof thread until I read the article. Crazy. For me, I think of Steve Young when I think of #8 in pro football, fwiw.
Not sure if this is the reason for Aikman, but he recently launched a beer in TX, OK called "8".
And is it true you have to win at least 1 playoff game to claim?
And is it true you have to win at least 1 playoff game to claim?
You certainly are no expert in trademark law. Patents and trademarks are two completely different types of intellectual property protection.
As to the OP, why the outrage? A trademark is an indication of source or origin. Letters are trademarks. So are colors (pink for insulation ) and sounds (Harley Davidson engine growl) and shapes (Coke bottle shape). Crocs obtained design patent protection on the hole pattern of their ugly shoes.
George Costanza should have trademark 7.
You certainly are no expert in trademark law. Patents and trademarks are two completely different types of intellectual property protection.
As to the OP, why the outrage? A trademark is an indication of source or origin. Letters are trademarks. So are colors (pink for insulation ) and sounds (Harley Davidson engine growl) and shapes (Coke bottle shape). Crocs obtained design patent protection on the hole pattern of their ugly shoes.
So if Ovechkin advertises a "#8 Hockey Camp" he infringes on a trademark? If so that's a law in need of change.
Sorry to be so pedantic, but there is no such thing as "infringing on" a trademark, copyright or a patent. One infringes or is infringing a trademark, patent copyright. I guess that the addition of "on" after the verb is an offshoot of the "hating on" in modern parlance. Regular news reports may use infringing on or infringes on, but not practicing attorneys and those that know the law. But I digress, and rant over.
Now to your question, the answer is "it depends." And on a lot of factors. #8 is different than "#8 Hockey Camp" and how #8 is used. The addition of words or symbols to a mark may distinguish over the trademark that is federally registered. Also, it depends on the goods and services covered by the registered mark. There are a lot more factors. It can get complex, and there are many nuances.
Digging in, according to the linked story: "FL101, a company that lists Aikman as one of its directors in SEC filings, targeting its use of "Eight" on apparel and bags. FL101 is listed as the owner of nine trademark applications for the use of "Eight" on a variety of consumer products, including beer, beach towels and energy drinks."
In my humble opinion, which is not legal advice, a properly informed court would not rule that #8 Hockey Camp does not infringe #8 covering consumer products, including beer, beach towels and energy drinks. The goods/services are in different channels of trade, and the consumers would be sophisticated enough to know a crappy Cowboys QB would be an even crappier hockey camp host.
Reminded me of the case where the owner of the Lexis legal database tried to prevent Toyota from using the name Lexus for their luxury brand arguing "the planned use of the LEXUS mark will cause a likelihood of confusion among consumers creating a false impression of the origin of the goods." I can't find the exact quote but I recall one of the Toyota attorneys asking if they are afraid someone intending to to do legal research will get confused by the similar names and end up instead buying a luxury car by mistake.Sorry to be so pedantic, but there is no such thing as "infringing on" a trademark, copyright or a patent. One infringes or is infringing a trademark, patent copyright. I guess that the addition of "on" after the verb is an offshoot of the "hating on" in modern parlance. Regular news reports may use infringing on or infringes on, but not practicing attorneys and those that know the law. But I digress, and rant over.
Now to your question, the answer is "it depends." And on a lot of factors. #8 is different than "#8 Hockey Camp" and how #8 is used. The addition of words or symbols to a mark may distinguish over the trademark that is federally registered. Also, it depends on the goods and services covered by the registered mark. There are a lot more factors. It can get complex, and there are many nuances.
Digging in, according to the linked story: "FL101, a company that lists Aikman as one of its directors in SEC filings, targeting its use of "Eight" on apparel and bags. FL101 is listed as the owner of nine trademark applications for the use of "Eight" on a variety of consumer products, including beer, beach towels and energy drinks."
In my humble opinion, which is not legal advice, a properly informed court would not rule that #8 Hockey Camp does not infringe #8 covering consumer products, including beer, beach towels and energy drinks. The goods/services are in different channels of trade, and the consumers would be sophisticated enough to know a crappy Cowboys QB would be an even crappier hockey camp host.
Probably because of my age, was a big baseball fan growing up in 70s/80's and Mattingly was my favorite player at the time. Plus my birthday is the 23rd (so it was always a number I used for sports). Then Jordan came along. I have always loved Jordan and when I hear #23 I think of him, but I assume a young person thinks of LeBron as #23.
There is a doctrine that gives particularly strong and/or famous marks a greater degree of protection. McDonald's stopped another entity from using McSleep for motels. But even famousness aside, the goods and services were close enough and the degree of sophistication of the consumers favored McDonald's.
The Lexis case was born to lose. However, if a mark owner does not police and enforce their mark, courts will use that as a factor that the mark has been weakened by dilution.
Trademark law is an attorney's paradise! Lots to argue about.
When you saw the thread title, were you worried?
This should be your theme song on the boards
I don't hate too many songs, but I hate that one. Please delete this post and never mention this again.
You have three 8's in your handle here, and this is a football board. I think you may have a case for infringement against Aikman and Jackson. I can represent you in a contingency basis, but my hold music is that Seger song.I don't hate too many songs, but I hate that one. Please delete this post and never mention this again.
I had a pair of red basketball shorts with number 23 on it and I told people the 23 was for Rutgers Brian Leonard! I truly thought it was…that’s how into Brian and Rutgers I was.
I think of Mattingly, too.
How can Lou Williams be on this list, but not Luis Tiant?
https://sports.yahoo.com/23-best-at...l6m2DzAQrJ6nUsBK1z7f5TSegNBlhHTHRkPIO2VVE66p2
You stole my thunder. I was going to ask @zappaa for his input on this, lol.
Cool, but did you think about seeking a trademark for the number?
Then Aikman's copyright is probably associated with beer.. or alcohol more generally. And it is fair, if so.
methinks lamar's legal team is racking up some unnescessary billing hours.