Doc Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: No, not by robots (whatever the f that means). The guy made some T-shirts for sale with the names he trademarked on them, thus satisfying the prior use requirement for trademarking. The law allows for this, hence the existence of squatting. It doesn't matter if you like it or not (either). Anyway, how much did the squatter extort from Snyder so far? He offered the WFC name a year ago. Obviously Snyder doesn't want it (or he would have taken it). The ONLY reason that Snyder applied for the trademark on WFT is because fans are taking to it and it is selling merchandise. He was too stupid to come up with another name, so now he has to or anyone can produce and legally sell WFT merch. Oh, and the squatter guy applied for the "WFT" trademark before Snyder--yet he hasn't been granted it either. Simple... Robots. You know, those who can't think beyond what's programmed in them? How hard is that to understand? Anyway... To claim that anyone would be "deceived..." by this is dumb. And if anyone would be "deceived," it's the person who is looking to purchase "Washington Football Club" merch...which is to say nobody. The squatter got nothing from Snyder because Snyder wouldn't pay him anything. But why hasn't the squatter relinquished the rights to "Washington Football Club" by now if he doesn't care about getting anything in return? The answer is obvious. Meanwhile again, why allow "club" and not "team"? "Club" is far more generic than "team." Unless they denied the squatter originally because of the professional football team playing in Washington...who is now trying to trademark the name. It doesn't matter if it's stupid or if you don't like Snyder (who does?) or even the letter of the law: it's a matter of what makes sense. No one is getting harmed by them trademarking "WFT" so this whole charade is a waste of time and money.
without a drought Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 I've got some t-shirts for sale if anyone's interested. They say " Those who shall not be named of Washington", both the shirts and naming rights are $20. Turnkey business with 20 shirts and naming rights $200.
Mr. WEO Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Doc said: Robots. You know, those who can't think beyond what's programmed in them? How hard is that to understand? Anyway... To claim that anyone would be "deceived..." by this is dumb. And if anyone would be "deceived," it's the person who is looking to purchase "Washington Football Club" merch...which is to say nobody. The squatter got nothing from Snyder because Snyder wouldn't pay him anything. But why hasn't the squatter relinquished the rights to "Washington Football Club" by now if he doesn't care about getting anything in return? The answer is obvious. Meanwhile again, why allow "club" and not "team"? "Club" is far more generic than "team." Unless they denied the squatter originally because of the professional football team playing in Washington...who is now trying to trademark the name. It doesn't matter if it's stupid or if you don't like Snyder (who does?) or even the letter of the law: it's a matter of what makes sense. No one is getting harmed by them trademarking "WFT" so this whole charade is a waste of time and money. Ive covered this twice already. The squatter offered to hand over the TM. Snyder never responded. He paid for the trademark and then tried to give it away. What don’t you understand about this by now? Snyder doesn’t want it. He could have easily had it a while ago by several means. So, if “the letter of the law” no longer matters, why should there be any laws governing this? Let’s make it easy for you; In American soccer “FC” is a commonly used team moniker. Should you be allowed to create merchandise and sell it under the trademark name “Austin FT” (Football Tram) or Toronto FT or Football Team Cincinnati?
Doc Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: Ive covered this twice already. The squatter offered to hand over the TM. Snyder never responded. He paid for the trademark and then tried to give it away. What don’t you understand about this by now? Snyder doesn’t want it. He could have easily had it a while ago by several means. So, if “the letter of the law” no longer matters, why should there be any laws governing this? Let’s make it easy for you; In American soccer “FC” is a commonly used team moniker. Should you be allowed to create merchandise and sell it under the trademark name “Austin FT” (Football Tram) or Toronto FT or Football Team Cincinnati? You believe him when he claims he "tried to give it away"? He spent $20K+ just for kicks, right? Yeah, OK. Who said the letter of the law no longer matters? Obviously the spirit of the law is a thing and doesn't involve completely getting rid of the law. Not sure why you wasted your time on this one. Again, "club" is far more generic than "team" is. Yet it was allowed. That makes absolutely no sense. Unless as I opined, it was because Washington has a professional football team and this guy had and has nothing, and that was taken into account. Meanwhile "club" and "team" are two totally different words. There's no confusion for anyone with even a partially functioning brain, especially when no one is looking for the merch of a "club" that doesn't and never will exist. Again another dumb reason for the denial. Spare me the "you don't understand." I understand that a decision was made. But dumb decisions are made all the time. I don't like Snyder as much as the next guy and don't care for the football team or the name they chose. But this is a waste of time and money with no party being injured by granting Snyder "Washington Football Team." It's little more than a cover-the-mouth "tee hee, screw Snyder" moment. Which I guess is amusing for some.
Mr. WEO Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Doc said: You believe him when he claims he "tried to give it away"? He spent $20K+ just for kicks, right? Yeah, OK. Who said the letter of the law no longer matters? Obviously the spirit of the law is a thing and doesn't involve completely getting rid of the law. Not sure why you wasted your time on this one. Again, "club" is far more generic than "team" is. Yet it was allowed. That makes absolutely no sense. Unless as I opined, it was because Washington has a professional football team and this guy had and has nothing, and that was taken into account. Meanwhile "club" and "team" are two totally different words. There's no confusion for anyone with even a partially functioning brain, especially when no one is looking for the merch of a "club" that doesn't and never will exist. Again another dumb reason for the denial. Spare me the "you don't understand." I understand that a decision was made. But dumb decisions are made all the time. I don't like Snyder as much as the next guy and don't care for the football team or the name they chose. But this is a waste of time and money with no party being injured by granting Snyder "Washington Football Team." It's little more than a cover-the-mouth "tee hee, screw Snyder" moment. You insist on making the same errors over and over. First bolded: I "believe him"...because he publicly said he would.: "McCaulay said he emailed NFL trademark attorneys on July 4, days after Washington announced it would kick off a "thorough review" of its nickname, "with the intention of facilitating a name change by the season opener in September 2020." In doing so, he added, McCaulay openly offered to give the NFL its requested nickname trademark "for free." Second bolded: you did (look up)... "It doesn't matter if it's stupid or if you don't like Snyder (who does?) or even the letter of the law" How is a legal decision "a waste of time and money"? Had they ruled as you felt they should have, would that (somehow) saved "time and money"? And you know that the squatter had registered WFT long before the team did---and he hasn't been issued a TM on it either, right? Had the court allowed WFT, it would have gone to the squatter anyway. Anyway, you couldn't answer my simple question: should you be able to sell anything at all under a trademarked name such as Toronto FT? What if 100 people (who, let's say, are not nearly in possession of such a "partially functioning brain") happen to buy pieces of such merchandise (maybe outside of the stadium)---is it ok for you to profit from money that clearly was meant for the owner of the team? As a patent lawyer for Washing football, you would simply stand up in court, during your closing, and say "the letter of the law is not important---we are not ROBOTS MAN!! And anything but relief for my client would be sooooo dumb, because only those without even a partially functioning brain would confuse 'club' and 'team'."? Edited June 28, 2021 by Mr. WEO
Doc Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said: You insist on making the same errors over and over. First bolded: I "believe him"...because he publicly said he would.: "McCaulay said he emailed NFL trademark attorneys on July 4, days after Washington announced it would kick off a "thorough review" of its nickname, "with the intention of facilitating a name change by the season opener in September 2020." In doing so, he added, McCaulay openly offered to give the NFL its requested nickname trademark "for free." Second bolded: you did (look up)... "It doesn't matter if it's stupid or if you don't like Snyder (who does?) or even the letter of the law" How is a legal decision "a waste of time and money"? Had they ruled as you felt they should have, would that (somehow) saved "time and money"? And you know that the squatter had registered WFT long before the team did---and he hasn't been issued a TM on it either, right? Anyway, you couldn't answer my simple question: should you be able to sell anything at all under a trademarked name such as Toronto FT? What if 100 people (who, let's say, are not nearly in possession of such a "partially functioning brain") happen to buy pieces of such merchandise (maybe outside of the stadium)---is it ok for you to profit from money that clearly was meant for the owner of the team? As a patent lawyer for Washing football, you would simply stand up in court, during your closing, and say "the letter of the law is not important---we are not ROBOTS MAN!! And anything but relief for my client would be sooooo dumb, because only those without even a partially functioning brain would confuse 'club' and 'team'."? Oh, he said it in public. That changes everything. And I'm talking about this case, not some hypothetical.
What a Tuel Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 On 6/25/2021 at 4:00 PM, Limeaid said: In same article you cited without link: From Tue July 14, 2020: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/washington-nfl-trademark-spt-trnd/index.html They probably could get a name for minimum amount (less than cost for one of $nyder's dinner parties) and some box seats for guy. I find this hard to believe. If he follows through (at a huge loss to himself) or if he actually made such an offer I will be shocked. He clearly also calls it an investment. How is it an investment if he plans to give it away. Also would've thought that Snyder's org would have jumped on it if thats the cause. Not hearing the whole story. 1
Saxum Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 33 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: Also would've thought that Snyder's org would have jumped on it if thats the cause. Not hearing the whole story. Well his organization has shown to be incompetent so I expect we have not heard whole story but person doing it is not poor so likely he wants something else - percentages, seats, etc.
John Adams Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 16 hours ago, Doc said: Yeah, I could see people getting confused, mistaken or deceived...by goods and/or services that were never offered in the first place and are never going to be offered, for obvious (to most) reasons. LOL! Again, stupid decision. Your tax dollars at work. You don't know what you're talking about and should stop. Just because you've never seen Washington Football Club "Athletic shirts; Sports caps and hats" doesn't mean they are not selling them in commerce. 15 hours ago, Doc said: Robots. You know, those who can't think beyond what's programmed in them? How hard is that to understand? Anyway... To claim that anyone would be "deceived..." by this is dumb. And if anyone would be "deceived," it's the person who is looking to purchase "Washington Football Club" merch...which is to say nobody. The squatter got nothing from Snyder because Snyder wouldn't pay him anything. But why hasn't the squatter relinquished the rights to "Washington Football Club" by now if he doesn't care about getting anything in return? The answer is obvious. Meanwhile again, why allow "club" and not "team"? "Club" is far more generic than "team." Unless they denied the squatter originally because of the professional football team playing in Washington...who is now trying to trademark the name. It doesn't matter if it's stupid or if you don't like Snyder (who does?) or even the letter of the law: it's a matter of what makes sense. No one is getting harmed by them trademarking "WFT" so this whole charade is a waste of time and money. Again stop. WFC is not a generic mark. It may be descriptive and that's why it's on the supplemental register. But of course you knew that and understand the difference between the principal and supplemental register.
Mr. WEO Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 9 hours ago, Doc said: Oh, he said it in public. That changes everything. And I'm talking about this case, not some hypothetical. lol...yes, he said it multiple times. Tweeted it out and put it in an email to the NFL. Snyder doesn't want the name. See below.... This case is the same as my hypothetical. You won't answer because you know that your answer would have to be "no, I should not be able to profit from such sales as some people might be confused or deceived into buying merchandise not related to their soccer team"...and thus you would be validating this trademark decision. 47 minutes ago, What a Tuel said: I find this hard to believe. If he follows through (at a huge loss to himself) or if he actually made such an offer I will be shocked. He clearly also calls it an investment. How is it an investment if he plans to give it away. Also would've thought that Snyder's org would have jumped on it if thats the cause. Not hearing the whole story. I'm sure you do. He made the offer. It was reported everywhere a year ago. After 10 days of no response, he decided to entertain an offer from Snyder. Still there was no response. Again, a year ago. He explained it away (at that time, a year ago) this way: he initially, as a joke, filed to trademark the Washington Pigskins (5 years ago). This prompted a response from the NFL trademark attorneys, who ultimately allowed it without challenge. So, he then registered a bunch of other names over the course of a few years. "I sent an email, because the NFL trademark attorneys had contacted me five years earlier about Pigskins," McCaulay said. "I wrote them an email with the subject line 'Free Trademarks.' I listed all those registered trademarks, and I said, 'You can use these for free.'" "I thought, 'I have registered trademarks. I'm not going to renew these. I thought the team might like to use one.' So they were offered free trademarks, and they did not respond," McCaulay said of the NFL. "I had to reach into my own pocket and pay a $400 an hour trademark attorney to contact the team and tell them I had the trademarks that they can have for free," he said. "They can just apply for all the trademarks using one of my names and apply for it. That doesn't even show up in front of a trademark attorney's desk for three months. So, anytime between then and three months, they can contact my attorney and tell me what do I need to do. I do not want to be an obstacle," he said. Only you and doc are denying this happened--with no factual basis to do so. The NFL and Snyder have not disputed this (a year ago or now). You two can read this and get back to us: https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/man-offered-nfl-dozens-free-trademarks-dc-team/story?id=71843133
Saxum Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 I do not suppose @Doc knows this fact since he keeps ranting about "waste of time and money" and "Your tax dollars at work" but where does majority of money for PTO come from? Hint: This is a trick question - when there is a budget impasse PTO is one of the few agencies which does not need to have furloughs and contractors laid off due to lack of money. It is from user fees. I have worked there for over 5 years and been through several budget crises with contractors laid off and not being paid as well as civil service whining while they were repaid when budget agreement. 1
Doc Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, John Adams said: You don't know what you're talking about and should stop. Just because you've never seen Washington Football Club "Athletic shirts; Sports caps and hats" doesn't mean they are not selling them in commerce. It also doesn’t mean they are. I’m sure he had some tchotchkes printed up that he might’ve “sold” some to his friends and relatives but I highly doubt he’s continuing to sink money by paying retailers to stock his wares. Quote Again stop. WFC is not a generic mark. It may be descriptive and that's why it's on the supplemental register. But of course you knew that and understand the difference between the principal and supplemental register. No, I don’t. What I am saying is that the word “club” has a broader meaning than the word “team” in this instance and yet was allowed. But let me ask you: do you think that Snyder will ever get the trademark for “Washington Football Team”? Edited June 28, 2021 by Doc
John Adams Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Doc said: It also doesn’t mean they are. I’m sure he had some tchotchkes printed up that he might’ve “sold” some to his friends and relatives but I highly doubt he’s continuing to sink money by paying retailers to stock his wares. If he did sales in quotes, the mark will be invalidated. 2 hours ago, Doc said: No, I don’t. What I am saying is that the word “club” has a broader meaning than the word “team” in this instance and yet was allowed. I'm going to skip talking about this point with you. 2 hours ago, Doc said: But let me ask you: do you think that Snyder will ever get the trademark for “Washington Football Team”? 80-20 approved would be my odds for something to register. I don't know what classes WFT is pending in (I don't care to look) but some will probably go through at least on the supplemental register. The clothing class registration is probably 20-80 approval chances. 3 hours ago, Limeaid said: I do not suppose @Doc knows this fact since he keeps ranting about "waste of time and money" and "Your tax dollars at work" but where does majority of money for PTO come from? Hint: This is a trick question - when there is a budget impasse PTO is one of the few agencies which does not need to have furloughs and contractors laid off due to lack of money. It is from user fees. I have worked there for over 5 years and been through several budget crises with contractors laid off and not being paid as well as civil service whining while they were repaid when budget agreement. I wish my tax dollars could fix Alice.
Doc Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 4 hours ago, Limeaid said: I do not suppose @Doc knows this fact since he keeps ranting about "waste of time and money" and "Your tax dollars at work" but where does majority of money for PTO come from? Hint: This is a trick question - when there is a budget impasse PTO is one of the few agencies which does not need to have furloughs and contractors laid off due to lack of money. It is from user fees. I have worked there for over 5 years and been through several budget crises with contractors laid off and not being paid as well as civil service whining while they were repaid when budget agreement. Thanks. Learned something new. 58 minutes ago, John Adams said: If he did sales in quotes, the mark will be invalidated. I'm going to skip talking about this point with you. 80-20 approved would be my odds for something to register. I don't know what classes WFT is pending in (I don't care to look) but some will probably go through at least on the supplemental register. The clothing class registration is probably 20-80 approval chances. So you're saying there's a chance...
Mr. WEO Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 6 hours ago, Doc said: It also doesn’t mean they are. I’m sure he had some tchotchkes printed up that he might’ve “sold” some to his friends and relatives but I highly doubt he’s continuing to sink money by paying retailers to stock his wares. No, I don’t. What I am saying is that the word “club” has a broader meaning than the word “team” in this instance and yet was allowed. But let me ask you: do you think that Snyder will ever get the trademark for “Washington Football Team”? This, again, has already been covered here: The same squatter applied to register "WFT" well before Snyder, so if it ever is approved, the squatter gets it. Stay down, Rocky...listen to Adrian.
Saxum Posted June 28, 2021 Posted June 28, 2021 5 hours ago, John Adams said: I wish my tax dollars could fix Alice. Is Alice your dog?
ghostwriter Posted June 30, 2021 Posted June 30, 2021 “Washington Football Team” is a terrible name and we all know it. Snyder wants to stick it to the NFL for forcing them to change their name in the first place. 2
cba fan Posted June 30, 2021 Posted June 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, Victory Formation said: “Washington Football Team” is a terrible name and we all know it. Snyder wants to stick it to the NFL for forcing them to change their name in the first place. Snyder caved to financial pressure his sponsors put on him. And pressure from DC city or they would not support a new stadium in DC proper. 1
Doc Posted June 30, 2021 Posted June 30, 2021 4 minutes ago, Victory Formation said: “Washington Football Team” is a terrible name and we all know it. Snyder wants to stick it to the NFL for forcing them to change their name in the first place. Terrible sure but no one's going to cancel him over it/force him to change the name in the future. 1
ghostwriter Posted June 30, 2021 Posted June 30, 2021 2 minutes ago, cba fan said: Snyder caved to financial pressure his sponsors put on him. And pressure from DC city or they would not support a new stadium in DC proper. Thank you for the correction. I’m just not sure what in the world he’s doing. WFT is the most bland, generic name of all teams in every possible pro sport imaginable. I just don’t understand what he’s doing. Terrible name. Snyder is a terrible owner and he should sell the team. 1
Recommended Posts