Started By
Message
re: Aggies Sue Indy Colts over use of "12th man"...
Posted on 11/12/15 at 10:43 pm to finestfirst79
Posted on 11/12/15 at 10:43 pm to finestfirst79
buckeyefan who goes out of his way to run down a&m makes me think he's not really a buckeye fan 
Y esos botas.....
Y esos botas.....
1
Posted on 11/12/15 at 10:59 pm to TbirdSpur2010
Las mujeres les encantaron 
Posted on 11/12/15 at 11:10 pm to Lonnie Utah
Trademark law is really interesting. You gotta do stuff like this to keep a mark alive. There is also probable a difference between the 12th man and The 12th Man as A&M and the Colts are using it.
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.
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.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 11:37 pm to finestfirst79
If they sent one letter in the last nine years, that's not a great fact for them if Indy has been using the mark during that period.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 11:47 pm to oman
quote:
If they sent one letter in the last nine years, that's not a great fact for them if Indy has been using the mark during that period.
IANAL, and I don't know any more than what we've already read on ESPN. A C&D in 2006, another in 2008. Beyond that I have no idea what else might have happened. I didn't even know this was a thing with the Colts. We'll see what happens. If it actually goes to a courtroom (which I think is doubtful) it could get interesting.
Posted on 11/12/15 at 11:52 pm to finestfirst79
Yes! Somebody answered a question without taking offense
quote:
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.
At first I thought the situations were different but theyre some what similar imo. A&m filed the lawsuit in 2006. Yalls responses were they settled because they knew in court they could lose the trademark for allowing Seattle to use it from over the years however long. But if Seattle recognized ownership to a&m and yall filed the lawsuit how is that not actively protecting a&ms copyright?
Then, a&m sent cease and desist to the colts in 2006, they were apparently ignored and now 10 years later are filing suit? Kind of cut from the same cloth you think?
I'm not trying to be offensive, my first post in this thread was 100% troll but I'm just trying to see if any one can understand where I'm coming from. Early I mentioned Im putting more emotion into but when I think of aggies I think of how passionate the students are, and other things but not important.
Posted on 11/13/15 at 12:00 am to Lonnie Utah
Why the hell would Indy even use this term knowing full well that another NFL team uses it? Lame
Posted on 11/13/15 at 12:08 am to Lonnie Utah
The Aggies have every right to sue and defend their trademark, and they should.
Posted on 11/13/15 at 12:10 am to CajunTiger_225
quote:
Yes! Somebody answered a question without taking offense
Old. Not necessarily wiser, but old.
quote:
Then, a&m sent cease and desist to the colts in 2006, they were apparently ignored and now 10 years later are filing suit? Kind of cut from the same cloth you think?
Eh, not really. I'm obviously not in the loop but as far as I know the Seahawks paid attention from the start, and worked this out in good faith with A&M. Indy, on the other hand, has basically said "frick you, we ain't reading all that."
Off on a bit of a tangent, as a software developer the misuse of "copyright" in this thread is bugging the hell out of me. I'm like that. Copyright is implied for published works. You don't even need to know you have it, you do. Trademarks require paperwork and quite a bit more attention. "The 12th Man" is a trademark owned by Texas A&M.
Posted on 11/13/15 at 12:21 am to WestCoastAg
Just going to drop this here:
quote:
One other NFL team, the Buffalo Bills, has a license from Texas A&M for "12th Man"
quote:
its not even a problem though because a&m doesnt just let people use it if they pay us. this would have some weight if we actually had a history of doing so. we dont.
Posted on 11/13/15 at 12:31 am to finestfirst79
quote:
Copyright is implied for published works. You don't even need to know you have it, you do. Trademarks require paperwork and quite a bit more attention
Holy shite, I used both alot
quote:
Eh, not really. I'm obviously not in the loop but as far as I know the Seahawks paid attention from the start, and worked this out in good faith with A&M. Indy, on the other hand, has basically said "frick you, we ain't reading all that."
I see. Definitely a difference on how the courts could handle this. I just don't see how a&m could ever lose, they have 4 trademarks and apparently 3 of which are indisputable. No I'm not an expert on trademark law but I know what the words trademark and indisputable mean.
Thank you for actually discussing your thoughts and not getting stuck on the distinctions of what the word trademark means.
Posted on 11/13/15 at 1:54 am to CajunTiger_225
If you want a serious answer about the 12th Man trademark, here it is.
The main difference between the dispute with Seattle and the dispute with Indianapolis is that at the time of the Seattle dispute A&M had been lax about policing the 12th Man trademark for quite some time, and failure to police is a valid grounds for a court ruling that the trademark has lost its distinctiveness and therefore the holder loses the rights. The Buffalo Bills, Chicago Bears, Seattle Seahawks, and Indianapolis Colts all used the term during the 1990's.
A term you need to know in this discussion is "Genericide". Essentially it means when a trademark becomes so commonly used throughout the market segment that it loses it's distinctiveness. Products like Thermos, aspirin, and Cellophane used to be trademarked brand names, but became so commonly used as terms to describe their respective products that the trademarks were lost and the terms became public domain. Even a trademark that has been granted "incontestable" status can be lost to genericide.
We are in an era where the 12th Man moniker seems to be making a comeback, lots of teams are trying to use it to grow their brands, as a result, A&M's trademark is at risk of genericide. Circa 2005 when A&M finally sued Seattle after Seattle had ignored dozens of cease and desist requests, since so many other teams were trying to use it, and A&M hadn't been effectively policing, there is a good chance that a court would have ruled that the term had become generic, especially if the other NFL teams using it like Buffalo and Indy had joined Seattle in the fight against A&M.
By striking the deal with Seattle for the $5,000 licensing fee, there was precedent of an NFL franchise worth hundreds of millions of dollars recognizing that A&M owned the trademark, and paying A&M for the right to use it. That made it much more difficult for other teams to challenge A&M's ownership.
The value wasn't in the money, it was in the recognition. Seattle paying A&M essentially proved A&M's ownership of a distinct mark, and gave A&M the ability to now enforce the trademark much more zealously knowing that their ownership is strongly recognized. In return, Seattle got the be the only team in the NFL with permission to use the term, but only in the Pacific Northwest. A&M actually further strengthened ownership of the mark by exerting control over Seattle's use, avoiding the issue of "Naked Licensing" where the licensee can do whatever they want with the trademark so long as they pay the fee. So from a legal standpoint, the licensing agreement with Seattle was actually a pretty huge power play by A&M at a time when their backs were against the wall and they were at risk of losing the mark altogether.
The downside for Seattle comes now, when the licensing agreement expires, and A&M looks unlikely to grant them another one. And they'll have a hard time explaining to a court why they should be able to use mark without A&M's permission now, seeing as how they officially recognized A&M's ownership just 10 years ago, and have been paying A&M for it ever since.
Bottom line is that A&M licensing the trademark to Seattle for the past 10 years, and controlling how and where Seattle can use it, is essentially what gives A&M the ability to enforce its ownership against challengers like the Colts today.
The main difference between the dispute with Seattle and the dispute with Indianapolis is that at the time of the Seattle dispute A&M had been lax about policing the 12th Man trademark for quite some time, and failure to police is a valid grounds for a court ruling that the trademark has lost its distinctiveness and therefore the holder loses the rights. The Buffalo Bills, Chicago Bears, Seattle Seahawks, and Indianapolis Colts all used the term during the 1990's.
A term you need to know in this discussion is "Genericide". Essentially it means when a trademark becomes so commonly used throughout the market segment that it loses it's distinctiveness. Products like Thermos, aspirin, and Cellophane used to be trademarked brand names, but became so commonly used as terms to describe their respective products that the trademarks were lost and the terms became public domain. Even a trademark that has been granted "incontestable" status can be lost to genericide.
We are in an era where the 12th Man moniker seems to be making a comeback, lots of teams are trying to use it to grow their brands, as a result, A&M's trademark is at risk of genericide. Circa 2005 when A&M finally sued Seattle after Seattle had ignored dozens of cease and desist requests, since so many other teams were trying to use it, and A&M hadn't been effectively policing, there is a good chance that a court would have ruled that the term had become generic, especially if the other NFL teams using it like Buffalo and Indy had joined Seattle in the fight against A&M.
By striking the deal with Seattle for the $5,000 licensing fee, there was precedent of an NFL franchise worth hundreds of millions of dollars recognizing that A&M owned the trademark, and paying A&M for the right to use it. That made it much more difficult for other teams to challenge A&M's ownership.
The value wasn't in the money, it was in the recognition. Seattle paying A&M essentially proved A&M's ownership of a distinct mark, and gave A&M the ability to now enforce the trademark much more zealously knowing that their ownership is strongly recognized. In return, Seattle got the be the only team in the NFL with permission to use the term, but only in the Pacific Northwest. A&M actually further strengthened ownership of the mark by exerting control over Seattle's use, avoiding the issue of "Naked Licensing" where the licensee can do whatever they want with the trademark so long as they pay the fee. So from a legal standpoint, the licensing agreement with Seattle was actually a pretty huge power play by A&M at a time when their backs were against the wall and they were at risk of losing the mark altogether.
The downside for Seattle comes now, when the licensing agreement expires, and A&M looks unlikely to grant them another one. And they'll have a hard time explaining to a court why they should be able to use mark without A&M's permission now, seeing as how they officially recognized A&M's ownership just 10 years ago, and have been paying A&M for it ever since.
Bottom line is that A&M licensing the trademark to Seattle for the past 10 years, and controlling how and where Seattle can use it, is essentially what gives A&M the ability to enforce its ownership against challengers like the Colts today.
This post was edited on 11/13/15 at 2:07 am
Posted on 11/13/15 at 3:40 am to AggieLandman
Booooooom.
Well done. No display of pestering anger and knows exactly what they are talkkng about and is capable of formulating a formal response with backing reasons. I fully respect that answer and can see that perfectly. Way to lay the boom.
I'm sure tomorrow beavis will say that's exactly what he meant.
Well done. No display of pestering anger and knows exactly what they are talkkng about and is capable of formulating a formal response with backing reasons. I fully respect that answer and can see that perfectly. Way to lay the boom.
I'm sure tomorrow beavis will say that's exactly what he meant.
Posted on 11/13/15 at 8:04 am to nicholastiger
quote:
banner for the game this year to recoup Chavis money.
If alleva did that...he would finally have my respect. That would be such an epic frick you move to A&M
Posted on 11/13/15 at 8:08 am to AggieLandman
quote:
The downside for Seattle comes now, when the licensing agreement expires, and A&M looks unlikely to grant them another one.
That is why they are "The 12s" now.
Page 9 of 9
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News