Started By
Message
re: The REAL 12th man on display tonight
Posted on 2/3/14 at 8:06 am to DWag215
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.
1
Posted on 2/3/14 at 8:38 am to aggressor
quote:
We just hadn't done enough to protect it and we risked losing ownership entirely
Correct
What I was addressing was the public use issue. If a term becomes too broad in the general use, like Xerox or Band Aid, it loses a defendable stance. In essence it becomes part of the general dialect and becomes impossible to defend. I am pretty sure the Bayer company holds the trademark for Heroin but entering the general has made it pretty unenforceable.
Seattle may be paying TAMU, but it may be more saving public face than true intent. If Seattle makes it more global (and probably will with a SB and global exposure) the folks at TAMU may have weakened their ability to protect the claim. With the success of Seattle, they have weakened their own ability to protect.
Other places may have a claim to the term and if they begin to use it after the Seattle win, it will make it that much harder to protect. Lots of words and terms have become generic and many might surprise folks who do not know the history. Next time you zip up you jacket or pants remember the term zipper was owned by a company for their rain boots. At a point the term took on a life of its own and could no longer be reasonably (cost of lawsuits to protect) protected.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News