Started By
Message
4
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:32 pm to Cobrasize
I imagine it's the "bitches" part combined with the fact that it's Clay Travis.
It's probably not worth the effort, but I'm not sure it's petty.
It's probably not worth the effort, but I'm not sure it's petty.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:32 pm to Section225
quote:
Section225
Attorney at Law.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:36 pm to GIbson05
quote:
So think the University has a case?
I'm not an attorney but I would think UA has a case. The intent is obviously to use the trademarked Alabama logo. A slight modification to the logo doesn't change that.
Do you think I could take the apple logo and remove the "bite" from the apple and slap it on a phone for sale? Not the exact same logo but I would still lose.
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 4:38 pm
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:37 pm to GIbson05
I don't know how parodies come into play with this type of trademark.
Outside of that, Bama has a claim. Crimsonish color. Scriptish letter. Obvious college football reference.
Travis is trying to make money off of Bama unless he can make this into some kind of joke/parody bit. And with the selling of merchandise, I just don't see that happening.
Outside of that, Bama has a claim. Crimsonish color. Scriptish letter. Obvious college football reference.
Travis is trying to make money off of Bama unless he can make this into some kind of joke/parody bit. And with the selling of merchandise, I just don't see that happening.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:38 pm to PearlJam
quote:
The bar wouldn't give a shite.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:40 pm to BHMKyle
quote:
Alabama has a case against Clay Travis, then the Atlanta Braves have a case against Alabama. Bama just added a little mark at the top to their logo... m
BM Kyle proving what a stupid POS he is
Pathetic
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:40 pm to deeprig9
quote:
if it is blatantly erroneous and intending to harass or intimidate.
Blatantly erroneous? WTF. It is a blatant iteration of a trademarked Alabama logo referencing Alabama football. This is laughable to call it "blatantly erroneous"
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:41 pm to BamaAlum02
quote:
The intent is obviously to use the trademarked Alabama logo.
How can you intend to use a trademarked logo? He didn't use the trademarked logo even though he could have, so how do you prove intent?
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:42 pm to StopRobot
One more issue, why does "head lice" pop up on a Clay Travis search ????????????????????????????????
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:44 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
He didn't use the trademarked logo even though he could have, so how do you prove intent?
I would think the fact that he paired it with the National Championship trophy is a pretty good indication.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:44 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
How can you intend to use a trademarked logo? He didn't use the trademarked logo even though he could have, so how do you prove intent?
You cant make a slight alteration to a logo and say it is fine. He ripped off a trademarked logo. I cant sell tshirts with the Polo logo just because I put the polo mallet in the riders left hand.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:45 pm to BamaAlum02
I think he's being a little intentionally obtuse.
The intent isn't to use the exact logo, the intent is to resemble the logo to make the person encountering/buying the shirt think "oh, script A, for Alabama, Hawaii, Tua, I get it"
The intent isn't to use the exact logo, the intent is to resemble the logo to make the person encountering/buying the shirt think "oh, script A, for Alabama, Hawaii, Tua, I get it"
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:46 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:One way to prove a trademark infringement claim is to show the defendant used a similar mark in such a way that it creates a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception with the consuming public.
How can you intend to use a trademarked logo? He didn't use the trademarked logo even though he could have, so how do you prove intent?
Bama has an argument. Whether they would win or not, I won't venture a guess because I havent had enough experience in that arena.
This post was edited on 1/18/18 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:47 pm to GIbson05
Clay Travis can pound sand
Alabama can sue today but that is close enough to the CFP trophy that the bigger lawsuit (and cease and desist order) will be coming down the pike from the CFP folks.
Alabama can sue today but that is close enough to the CFP trophy that the bigger lawsuit (and cease and desist order) will be coming down the pike from the CFP folks.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:50 pm to 14&Counting
quote:
Don’t fuxk with Bama’s licensing department. They will take you to the mat.
I personally know someone this happened to and it was far less agregious than this. Dudes life was ruined with the amount he had to pay and he and his wife were both Bama grads. they were clearly in the wrong but the university wouldn't let up one bit.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:50 pm to GIbson05
But it isn't the Alabama A without the mullet!
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:50 pm to HDAU
quote:
But it isn't the Alabama A without the mullet!
I will riot if they ever take that mullet away
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:51 pm to GIbson05
Yes they have a case. From someone who sells Bama gear. Whether he got the A right or not, the colors, the A , and the CFP trophy clearly indicate he is making money using the university.
Posted on 1/18/18 at 4:51 pm to meansonny
quote:
I don't know how parodies come into play with this type of trademark.
The question of parodies are more problematic if Clay (I am a dick) Travis profits from said parody. If he is giving them away for free, he is not profiting in a company or personal way. If he is making even a penny per shirt profit, seems the ice under his feet gets a bit thinner.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News