Started By
Message
re: The REAL 12th man on display tonight
Posted on 2/3/14 at 12:00 am to Cheese Grits
Posted on 2/3/14 at 12:00 am to Cheese Grits
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.
3
Posted on 2/3/14 at 8:06 am to DWag215
We actually got the copyright in 1990. There are 2 sides to this issue, the legal one and the marketing one.
On the legal side we almost had to license it to Seattle. We just hadn't done enough to protect it and we risked losing ownership entirely if it went all the way with our lawsuit. By licensing it we got them to recognize our ownership and restrict what they can use it for while also getting them to help us police anyone else that uses the trademark. We also get a check but it's not enough to make a difference other than to be enough to clearly show our ownership.
Where it would get ugly is if we decided not to renew our agreement with them. We kind of have them over a barrel now that they have recognized us twice as owning it but there is also no question it would be damaging to Seattle if we did. It would also be very difficult to police all of the fans in Seattle that would likely go on being the "12th Man" regardless and we certainly couldn't expect any help from Seattle (who would actually probably encourage it so they could claim we don't own it anymore). Spending huge sums of money to have lawyers chase down copyright claims just isn't a good plan. We may up the amount and limit further what they can do with it, for instance getting NFL people to only use the term in certain ways or not at all.
On the marketing side it is a concern that some casual fans will confuse the two. At the same time though it works as a cross marketing tool, how many times did A&M get mentioned in the last 2 weeks over the 12th Man when it would otherwise not have been? Since Seattle can't sell 12th Man merchandise and is restricted to their market it also greatly limits them encroaching on us too much. There is also the idea of "We are the college 12th Man, they are the NFL 12th Man".
BTW, all 3 Aggies on Seattle have publicly said that A&M is the REAL home of the 12th Man with no blowback from the locals. They know it is ours first and foremost.
On the legal side we almost had to license it to Seattle. We just hadn't done enough to protect it and we risked losing ownership entirely if it went all the way with our lawsuit. By licensing it we got them to recognize our ownership and restrict what they can use it for while also getting them to help us police anyone else that uses the trademark. We also get a check but it's not enough to make a difference other than to be enough to clearly show our ownership.
Where it would get ugly is if we decided not to renew our agreement with them. We kind of have them over a barrel now that they have recognized us twice as owning it but there is also no question it would be damaging to Seattle if we did. It would also be very difficult to police all of the fans in Seattle that would likely go on being the "12th Man" regardless and we certainly couldn't expect any help from Seattle (who would actually probably encourage it so they could claim we don't own it anymore). Spending huge sums of money to have lawyers chase down copyright claims just isn't a good plan. We may up the amount and limit further what they can do with it, for instance getting NFL people to only use the term in certain ways or not at all.
On the marketing side it is a concern that some casual fans will confuse the two. At the same time though it works as a cross marketing tool, how many times did A&M get mentioned in the last 2 weeks over the 12th Man when it would otherwise not have been? Since Seattle can't sell 12th Man merchandise and is restricted to their market it also greatly limits them encroaching on us too much. There is also the idea of "We are the college 12th Man, they are the NFL 12th Man".
BTW, all 3 Aggies on Seattle have publicly said that A&M is the REAL home of the 12th Man with no blowback from the locals. They know it is ours first and foremost.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News