ghostwriter Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 I think the Washington Natives is a really classy name and the logo stays the same. 1
BuffaloFan68 Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 Best think that can happen with the team is if they are sold to a new owner. Can't find anyone in the Washington area that likes DS.
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 3 hours ago, Irv said: I don’t get it. They could be selling jerseys and swag like crazy if they just picked a new name. Seems like a huge missed opportunity. Read an article last year about who was the other team that changed names fairly recently, but article talked about how it took them close to two years to decide on new name. There was much to study and then things like gear being lined up both for players and sale, etc.
SF Bills Fan Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 I'd just keep it at Washington Football Team. That guy trademarked all the names and claims he doesn't want money, but he wants all the money.
RichRiderBills Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Rk_Bills86 said: The "Dude" has every right to copyright and trade mark names that are NOT being used by anyone other than himself. That is literally how it works. This is in reference to the multitude of names the squatter has legally reserved rights to such as the Washington - Redhawks, Diesels, Generals, Patriots, etc... The guy literally reached out and offered several names for free and since he got no response he's not waiting to be contacted: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/washington-redskins-name-change-trademark-squatter-says-only-four-name-options-are-viable-for-2020-season/ Your assertion that he has no right to the names is ridiculous. The guy could literally make a website tomorrow using the names and it would hold up in court. He's not the only one with names being squatted on. Any recent bar passing attorney would easily be able to dismiss a high profile team trying to strong arm an individual for a name they have had for years and can show records of use in any setting. An NFL team has no "RIGHT" to overtake a name and would lose embarrassingly in court. Yeah you're simply not correct. I love the snarky know it all answer, but you're just not accurate. There are ways to challenge the validity of a copyright, and there are also angles with fair use. Examples you cite are likely a poor comparison. Website URLs are not comparable, The money of the WFT to pursue in court is far greater than this one uppity dude with a half ass trash website is pretty pretentious. It takes money to fight appeals and pursue in court. WFT has more money, and likely can craft a legitimate challenge or exhaust this dudes ability to pursue. For starters, there is no logo or colors this man has copyrighted , and a copyright would entail a larger scale than a name alone. The notion someone wrote an bull#### website and copyrighted the name of a city paired. I also question his dissenterest in financial gain. I'm no fan of Snyder but they would eat this well wishing gent for breakfast if they so choosed. Looks like we will never know. In the end, the guy just looks like an ass. Edited March 24, 2021 by RichRiderBills 1
Royale with Cheese Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 I like Scott Van Pelt's suggestion....Washington Football Club sounds better. He also thinks its because WFT likes the color scheme and don't want to mess with that. 1
Rk_Bills86 Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 9 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said: Yeah you're simply not correct. I love the snarky know it all answer, but you're just not accurate. There are ways to challenge the validity of a copyright, and there are also angles with fair use. Examples you cite are likely a poor comparison. Website URLs are not comparable, The money of the WFT to pursue in court is far greater than this one uppity dude with a half ass trash website is pretty pretentious. It takes money to fight appeals and pursue in court. WFT has more money, and likely can craft a legitimate challenge or exhaust this dudes ability to pursue. For starters, there is no logo or colors this man has copyrighted , and a copyright would entail a larger scale than a name. The notion someone wrote an bull#### website and copyrighted the name of a city paired. I also question his dissenterest in some half brain goal of financial gain. You should take your own advise on this one: 1) I'm not coming at this from zero experience 2) Websites are actually completely comparable - see point 1. Many of the laws related to this are directly pulled from the Dot Com laws that came about from domain squatters - see my original post where I mention this. 3) If you would like other options anyone squatting on a copyright and trademark could use here's one that is common practice - create a brand with both a copyright and trademark, have said logo/name on a item that you give away for free to promote a related (or unrelated) item. This can be done with say, a microfiber towel that is packaged with camera parts for sale - which then allow you claim exclusivity to a packaged deal of sale items due to you having the legal rights to the "free" item with your copyright/trademark on it. The definition of "use" of the copyright/trademark is extremely broad. - see point 1 Let's extend this to say - a recreational sports team. I would like to sponsor a softball team through my business for a league. I could easily come up with a name and logo - copyright/trademark it - and so long as the team exists I would win in court. 4) The money to push this guy through court - some of these people are squatting on 20+ names. Do you think they care if you drag them through court - that they haven't seen that as a course of action? This is literally their retirement plan. Also it will cost the team WAY more than it costs some of these people. Not to mention - on what grounds are you going to bully this "dude" into giving up their carefully saved nest egg? No seriously - since I'm the one being "snarky" - I would like you to tell me on what grounds the WFT would win in court over a legal name squatter? 5) Copyright vs Trademark distinction here is very important. But in both cases the name alone is enough to file for. Copyright is intellectual property vs Trademark being things like company names, logos, etc.. While you might be able to argue that this is more of a trademark case - the argument would be moot if this "dude" or anyone for that matter has a filed and granted Copyright/Trademark. The scope is irrelevant - see point 1. 6) You are right that many of the copyright/trade mark squatters are half-brained thinking that this scheme is their golden goose. I will agree to you on this - the idea is insane. 7) That being said - I have seen as a standard business practice, the ease of obtaining and abusing copyright/trademark laws and how they favor those with the valid copyright/trademark heavily. They are called legal squatters for a reason - they do just enough to legally maintain their copyright/trademark for the duration that they see fit to have such legal protections. While this might not sit well with you, that does NOT change the laws and how they work.
Saxum Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 4 hours ago, JMF2006 said: They wanted the Senators but it is taken then thought about using Congressmen but they were split on the vote Then they were going with Bullets but had a wait a minute moment Then it was on to the Generals(it fit too well) $nyder opened mouth about changing name without reserving name he wanted so local real estate person opened trademark on all of the most likely names. Work at USPTO and saw requests coming in. 1
RichRiderBills Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Rk_Bills86 said: You should take your own advise on this one: 1) I'm not coming at this from zero experience 2) Websites are actually completely comparable - see point 1. Many of the laws related to this are directly pulled from the Dot Com laws that came about from domain squatters - see my original post where I mention this. 3) If you would like other options anyone squatting on a copyright and trademark could use here's one that is common practice - create a brand with both a copyright and trademark, have said logo/name on a item that you give away for free to promote a related (or unrelated) item. This can be done with say, a microfiber towel that is packaged with camera parts for sale - which then allow you claim exclusivity to a packaged deal of sale items due to you having the legal rights to the "free" item with your copyright/trademark on it. The definition of "use" of the copyright/trademark is extremely broad. - see point 1 Let's extend this to say - a recreational sports team. I would like to sponsor a softball team through my business for a league. I could easily come up with a name and logo - copyright/trademark it - and so long as the team exists I would win in court. 4) The money to push this guy through court - some of these people are squatting on 20+ names. Do you think they care if you drag them through court - that they haven't seen that as a course of action? This is literally their retirement plan. Also it will cost the team WAY more than it costs some of these people. Not to mention - on what grounds are you going to bully this "dude" into giving up their carefully saved nest egg? No seriously - since I'm the one being "snarky" - I would like you to tell me on what grounds the WFT would win in court over a legal name squatter? 5) Copyright vs Trademark distinction here is very important. But in both cases the name alone is enough to file for. Copyright is intellectual property vs Trademark being things like company names, logos, etc.. While you might be able to argue that this is more of a trademark case - the argument would be moot if this "dude" or anyone for that matter has a filed and granted Copyright/Trademark. The scope is irrelevant - see point 1. 6) You are right that many of the copyright/trade mark squatters are half-brained thinking that this scheme is their golden goose. I will agree to you on this - the idea is insane. 7) That being said - I have seen as a standard business practice, the ease of obtaining and abusing copyright/trademark laws and how they favor those with the valid copyright/trademark heavily. They are called legal squatters for a reason - they do just enough to legally maintain their copyright/trademark for the duration that they see fit to have such legal protections. While this might not sit well with you, that does NOT change the laws and how they work. Ha...just I knew you were going to come at the angle of "im a lawyer" type reply. If you were, and you offered any kind of support for the notion that deep pocketed entities did not have a serious advantage in these situations...you're offering "marginal" insight... Obviously you did not even read the cited article in the chain, which also has a legal expert supporting my own belief that this man has a threadbare shot of whatever his goals are: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-redskins-name-trademark-martin-mccaulay/ Let's further look at the guy's website: http://www.washingtonamericansfootball.com/home.html On the website, I quote; The Washington Americans will be one of the teams in a Washington DC area flag-football league starting in the year 2021. Other teams will include the Washington Red-Tailed Hawks/Redtails, Washington Redwolves, Washington Veterans, Washington Monuments, Washington Renegades, Washington Federals, Washington Sentinels, and Washington Justice. Click on the team names to visit their websites. This is actually potentially fraudulent. There are so many potential angles to go after him its not even funny. BTW several of these teams already exist, such as the Washington Renegades Rugby Team, Washington Justice is a fairly established pro Gaming Team. They even brew their own beer. Edited March 24, 2021 by RichRiderBills
US Egg Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 3 hours ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said: UPC barcodes for names, numbers, etc. 1
Rocbillsfan1 Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 5 hours ago, BarleyNY said: There’s been some speculation that Snyder will sell the team. If that’s true it would makes sense to hold off and allow the new owner to name the team. This.
nucci Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 6 minutes ago, Rocbillsfan1 said: This. He just bought out his other partners
Rk_Bills86 Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 20 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said: Ha...just I knew you were going to come at the angle of "im a lawyer" type reply. If you were, and you offered any kind of support for the notion that deep pocketed entities did not have a serious advantage in these situations...your offering "marginal" insight. Obviously you did not even read the cited article in the chain, which also has a legal expert supporting my own belief that this man has a threadbare shot of whatever his goals are: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/washington-redskins-name-trademark-martin-mccaulay/ Let's further look at the guy's website: http://www.washingtonamericansfootball.com/home.html On the website, I quote; The Washington Americans will be one of the teams in a Washington DC area flag-football league starting in the year 2021. Other teams will include the Washington Red-Tailed Hawks/Redtails, Washington Redwolves, Washington Veterans, Washington Monuments, Washington Renegades, Washington Federals, Washington Sentinels, and Washington Justice. Click on the team names to visit their websites. This is actually potentially fraudulent. There are so many potential angles to go after him its not even funny. Not a lawyer - however - I did work for NFL Films and ESPN (in multimedia) as well as other companies (product and brand design) and as a Free Lance designer where dealing with copyrights and trademarks was a daily thing. I have won in court in a trademark vs copyright suit vs a movie distribution company where my trademarked won over the company and their copyright. I have watched companies I've worked for absolutely destroy competition by abusing copyright/trademark laws to get them immediately removed from amazon and have their sellers license revoked (I should note this is only American companies). I again ask you again - directly tell me - if someone has a legal copyright/trademark to a name the WFT wants - what exactly are they going to do in court to get someone to relinquish it. I don't care if the owner is a legal squatter. If you think riding the "intent at conception" angle thinking it's going to be a slam dunk in court you are sadly mistaken - which is what the lawyer in the article eludes to. There are plenty of copyrights and trademarks that don't get used for their original intent at conception. Changing the intent at future date and then seeing through with said secondary intent is just as valid.
DrDawkinstein Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 5 hours ago, BarleyNY said: There’s been some speculation that Snyder will sell the team. If that’s true it would makes sense to hold off and allow the new owner to name the team. Almost unbelievably, the EXACT OPPOSITE just happened this morning! I am SHOCKED by this news of Snyder buying out the minority holders. The NFL just wrapped their own investigation into the WFT and its past issues, and the League's report concluded with a recommendation that the NFL forces Snyder to sell the team. And now the opposite is happening, and is approved by the league. WTF WFT! 1
RichRiderBills Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 (edited) On 3/24/2021 at 1:05 PM, Rk_Bills86 said: Not a lawyer - however - I did work for NFL Films and ESPN (in multimedia) as well as other companies (product and brand design) and as a Free Lance designer where dealing with copyrights and trademarks was a daily thing. I have won in court in a trademark vs copyright suit vs a movie distribution company where my trademarked won over the company and their copyright. I have watched companies I've worked for absolutely destroy competition by abusing copyright/trademark laws to get them immediately removed from amazon and have their sellers license revoked (I should note this is only American companies). I again ask you again - directly tell me - if someone has a legal copyright/trademark to a name the WFT wants - what exactly are they going to do in court to get someone to relinquish it. I don't care if the owner is a legal squatter. If you think riding the "intent at conception" angle thinking it's going to be a slam dunk in court you are sadly mistaken - which is what the lawyer in the article eludes to. There are plenty of copyrights and trademarks that don't get used for their original intent at conception. Changing the intent at future date and then seeing through with said secondary intent is just as valid. The world of copyright trademarks is vastly different across these areas. It's very complex and anyone, even an experienced copyright/trademark/ patent saavy lawyer would say there are no absolutes and you are potentially very very wrong. My point is there are no slam dunks. But I would wager the Snyder legal team is far craftier and more resouceful than you or I, let alone Mr. Macaulay. As for your question, I'm not going to head into or tie up the thread any longer. There are numerous ways to challenge the validity of copyright, pursue fraud, or find avenues in fair use. If your saying there is no way to challenge this, you are simply not correct. BTW need an example of Snyder's ability to turn a case into an epic and drag a fight out ? https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/2017/06/29/a26f52f0-5cf6-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html Edited March 25, 2021 by RichRiderBills
Jauronimo Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 5 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said: Almost unbelievably, the EXACT OPPOSITE just happened this morning! I am SHOCKED by this news of Snyder buying out the minority holders. The NFL just wrapped their own investigation into the WFT and its past issues, and the League's report concluded with a recommendation that the NFL forces Snyder to sell the team. And now the opposite is happening, and is approved by the league. WTF WFT! Could be step 1 in putting the team on the market. Potential buyers would definitely rather deal with one owner than multiple owners. 1
MJS Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 They should probably just drop "team" and call themselves the "Washington Footballs". Then change their colors to brown on brown. 1
Rk_Bills86 Posted March 24, 2021 Posted March 24, 2021 2 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said: The world of copyright trademarks is vastly different across these areas. It's very complex and anyone, even an experienced copyright/trademark/ patent saavy lawyer would say there are no absolutes and you are potentially very very wrong. My point is their are no slam dunks. But I would wager the Snyder legal team is far craftier and more resouceful than you or I, let alone Mr. Macaulay. As for your question, I'm not going to head into or tie up the thread any longer. There are numerous ways to challenge the validity of copyright, pursue fraud, or find avenues in fair use. If your saying there is no way to challege this, you are simply not correct. Didn't say they couldn't challenge it - I asked you to state on what grounds would easily win them the case - since you inferred the legal copyright/trademark squatters would be simple to deal with in court. The onus is on the accuser.
Recommended Posts