Started By
Message
re: Aggies Sue Indy Colts over use of "12th man"...
Posted on 11/12/15 at 11:23 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Posted on 11/12/15 at 11:23 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
Literally zero people have typed this
I don't know why I put that in quotes but there's been alot of it:
quote:
there's a different representation of not allowing it to be used whatsoever than allowing it to be used for a payment
Actually, there isn't
How so? Just because? All that does is protect the trademark.
Is that all that matters? Why doesnt it matter whether or not it's exclusive to a&m?
quote:
why is their a price on yalls copyright
Because of the bolded word.
That answers the question? Because.
quote:Well then what is it?
and biggest tradition
This is a falsehood
quote:
the answer isn't because that's how trademarks work
Except that it is.
Except that it is... what exactly?
Because.
quote:
it's not being "replicated," it's being infringed upon. There is a difference.
Until they settled, then it's being replicated with permission from Texas A&M, no?
quote:
You keep angling for this response. We obviously DO care, hence countless cease and desist letters, and tireless defense of our copyright.
Im choosing my words too poorly. Basically I'm asking are yall okay with other teams using the term 12th man as long as a&m is paid for it? Or okay with the school taking that kind of mentality.
I'm not trying to angle, I'm trying to be blunt about something as a fan how I would feel about that certain situation and coming off like an arse about it while doing so. Instead of just being straight up about it yall revert to legalities and why this is because of this, I don't give a frick about that. Why settle with Seattle "because we could have lost the trademark in court" Yall already owned the copyright. "If you don't protect it you can lose it" you really think a&m would have lost that case? Now I'm getting into what ifs jesuslapeedis.
1
Posted on 11/12/15 at 11:34 pm to CajunTiger_225
quote:
Basically I'm asking are yall okay with other teams using the term 12th man as long as a&m is paid for it?
Just speaking for myself, no. I think in Seattle's case it was settled with a license agreement because a) Seattle recognized that A&M owned the trademark and b) A&M recognized that they might lose the case if it went that far because Seattle had been using the slogan for several (don't know how many) years before anybody noticed.
In Indy's case, I'll be really surprised if this ends in another licensing agreement. The circumstances are very different. A&M sent its first C&D letter in 2006 and at least one more. Those were apparently ignored. My guess is a judge will order Indy to cut the crap, and that will be that. But I've been wrong before.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News