re: The REAL 12th man on display tonight

quote:

---

I think in the eyes of the law, TAMU will have the lesser global claim and it will be very hard to defend brand identity. Just like Xerox became interchangeable with copy and Band Aid became interchangeable with adhesive bandage their claim slipped.

---

It doesn't matter.

We've licensed the mark two different times to Seattle. This means they've acknowledged our ownership twice. The attention they're receiving is no doubt broader and more forceful than anything we have. But at the end of the day they acknowledge the term isn't theirs.

As an aside, we had to license the term. Until we did we had done a terrible job defending it over the years. Seattle began using it in 1984, albeit not to the extent they are now. At the time we licensed it in I think 2004 or 2006, we had essentially let them use it without complaint for twenty or so years. They had a colorable claim to the mark had this gone to litigation. By having them acknowledge our ownership we avoided any threat to permanently losing superior rights. It was the right move. And it was the right move to renew the license in 2011 too.

Now TAMU has multiple agreements in which Seattle itself acknowledges our proprietary right to the mark. If this went to litigation--say if we decided not to renew the license in 2016--Seattle's claim to the mark is far weaker, if not inexistent.