NFL demands stores not to sell "Who Dat" gear. (1 Viewer)

[ATC1]

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Whoownswhodat-82841572.html

by Katie Moore / Eyewitness News

Posted on January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Updated today at 6:58 AM

******

NEW ORLEANS - As the Saints' appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase "Who Dat."

But who really owns "Who Dat"? Does anyone? Who is a “Who Dat?” What is a “Who Dat?” Who owns the phrase, "Who Dat?"

They're all questions Fleurty Girl t-shirt shop owner Lauren Thom is being forced to answer.

“The NFL is not a company that I want to rock the boat with, but I definitely want to look into it further to see what my rights are,” Thom said.

Two weeks ago, Thom got a cease and desist order from the NFL.

“They're telling me not to print anymore shirts and to get rid of the inventory that I have because it says the words 'Who dat' and it has a gold fleur de lis on the shirt,” she said.

But Thom’s t-shirt isn’t the only one the NFL has a problem with. Storyville t-shirt shop also got a cease and desist order for two of their t-shirts.

“I really thought the 'Who Dat' was something that belonged to the people more than to the Saints or to the NFL or anything else,” said Storyville co-owner Josh Harvey.

According to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson, "Any unauthorized use of the Saints colors and other [marks] designed to create the illusion of an affiliation with the Saints is equally a violation of the Saints trademark rights because it allows a third party to 'free ride' by profiting from confusion of the team's fans, who want to show support for the Saints."

Loyola Law School intellectual property professor Ray Arieaux said the ownership of 'Who Dat' may be a gray area.

“Is there some unfair trade taking place because maybe the public does associate that with the Saints? The question is what does the public associate with 'Who Dat,'" Arieaux asked.

And the NFL isn't the only company claiming ownership of the phrase.

Sal and Steve Monistere recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties and incorporated the "Who Dat" chant into it. Aaron Neville recorded it, and performed with our own Eric Paulsen in an early '80's video version.

Because the song helped create the widespread use of the “Who Dat” chant, the Monisteres and their company, Who Dat, inc., say they own "Who Dat."

“If they really do own it, what they want to do is, we'll come out together and have a shirt that says ‘Defend Who Dat.’ Because it started by the fans and its for the fans,” Thom said.

Some say "Who Dat" came from an 1890's jazz song, but when it comes to modern-day ownership of "Who Dat," Arieaux said the more sources of it, the less likely it is that anyone owns it, and ownership all depends on what people think of when they see or hear "Who Dat."

“Do they think about fans supporting or do they think about, oh, it's something really from the Saints and the NFL? And I don't know the answer to that,” Arieaux said.

The problem is that the phrase is 2 decades old. Oh course now that they are in the SB and "Who Dat" sales are through the roof that people realize the money that they are losing. They are trying to claim the Fleur de Lis as well? That is complete bull####.

 

[az_prof]

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Whoownswhodat-82841572.html

by Katie Moore / Eyewitness News

Posted on January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Updated today at 6:58 AM

******

NEW ORLEANS - As the Saints' appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase "Who Dat."

But who really owns "Who Dat"? Does anyone? Who is a “Who Dat?” What is a “Who Dat?” Who owns the phrase, "Who Dat?"

They're all questions Fleurty Girl t-shirt shop owner Lauren Thom is being forced to answer.

“The NFL is not a company that I want to rock the boat with, but I definitely want to look into it further to see what my rights are,” Thom said.

Two weeks ago, Thom got a cease and desist order from the NFL.

“They're telling me not to print anymore shirts and to get rid of the inventory that I have because it says the words 'Who dat' and it has a gold fleur de lis on the shirt,” she said.

But Thom’s t-shirt isn’t the only one the NFL has a problem with. Storyville t-shirt shop also got a cease and desist order for two of their t-shirts.

“I really thought the 'Who Dat' was something that belonged to the people more than to the Saints or to the NFL or anything else,” said Storyville co-owner Josh Harvey.

According to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson, "Any unauthorized use of the Saints colors and other [marks] designed to create the illusion of an affiliation with the Saints is equally a violation of the Saints trademark rights because it allows a third party to 'free ride' by profiting from confusion of the team's fans, who want to show support for the Saints."

Loyola Law School intellectual property professor Ray Arieaux said the ownership of 'Who Dat' may be a gray area.

“Is there some unfair trade taking place because maybe the public does associate that with the Saints? The question is what does the public associate with 'Who Dat,'" Arieaux asked.

And the NFL isn't the only company claiming ownership of the phrase.

Sal and Steve Monistere recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties and incorporated the "Who Dat" chant into it. Aaron Neville recorded it, and performed with our own Eric Paulsen in an early '80's video version.

Because the song helped create the widespread use of the “Who Dat” chant, the Monisteres and their company, Who Dat, inc., say they own "Who Dat."

“If they really do own it, what they want to do is, we'll come out together and have a shirt that says ‘Defend Who Dat.’ Because it started by the fans and its for the fans,” Thom said.

Some say "Who Dat" came from an 1890's jazz song, but when it comes to modern-day ownership of "Who Dat," Arieaux said the more sources of it, the less likely it is that anyone owns it, and ownership all depends on what people think of when they see or hear "Who Dat."

“Do they think about fans supporting or do they think about, oh, it's something really from the Saints and the NFL? And I don't know the answer to that,” Arieaux said.

The problem is that the phrase is 2 decades old. Oh course now that they are in the SB and "Who Dat" sales are through the roof that people realize the money that they are losing. They are trying to claim the Fleur de Lis as well? That is complete bull####.

Wow. The NFL sure knows how to alienate its fan base. There goes the No Fun League again... Unless the NFL or the Saints have a copyright on the phrase then the NFL has no case. And as for the fleur de lis...it is the national symbol of France for god's sake! The saints stole if from France if you want to get precise about it. This is the worst side of capitalism and it really drives home how the NFL is a business that is really good at playing upon people's emotions to exploit them to make money.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.

On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:

If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.

You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.

So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).

So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.

The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

 

[shader]

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Whoownswhodat-82841572.html

by Katie Moore / Eyewitness News

Posted on January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Updated today at 6:58 AM

******

NEW ORLEANS - As the Saints' appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase "Who Dat."

But who really owns "Who Dat"? Does anyone? Who is a “Who Dat?” What is a “Who Dat?” Who owns the phrase, "Who Dat?"

They're all questions Fleurty Girl t-shirt shop owner Lauren Thom is being forced to answer.

“The NFL is not a company that I want to rock the boat with, but I definitely want to look into it further to see what my rights are,” Thom said.

Two weeks ago, Thom got a cease and desist order from the NFL.

“They're telling me not to print anymore shirts and to get rid of the inventory that I have because it says the words 'Who dat' and it has a gold fleur de lis on the shirt,” she said.

But Thom’s t-shirt isn’t the only one the NFL has a problem with. Storyville t-shirt shop also got a cease and desist order for two of their t-shirts.

“I really thought the 'Who Dat' was something that belonged to the people more than to the Saints or to the NFL or anything else,” said Storyville co-owner Josh Harvey.

According to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson, "Any unauthorized use of the Saints colors and other [marks] designed to create the illusion of an affiliation with the Saints is equally a violation of the Saints trademark rights because it allows a third party to 'free ride' by profiting from confusion of the team's fans, who want to show support for the Saints."

Loyola Law School intellectual property professor Ray Arieaux said the ownership of 'Who Dat' may be a gray area.

“Is there some unfair trade taking place because maybe the public does associate that with the Saints? The question is what does the public associate with 'Who Dat,'" Arieaux asked.

And the NFL isn't the only company claiming ownership of the phrase.

Sal and Steve Monistere recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties and incorporated the "Who Dat" chant into it. Aaron Neville recorded it, and performed with our own Eric Paulsen in an early '80's video version.

Because the song helped create the widespread use of the “Who Dat” chant, the Monisteres and their company, Who Dat, inc., say they own "Who Dat."

“If they really do own it, what they want to do is, we'll come out together and have a shirt that says ‘Defend Who Dat.’ Because it started by the fans and its for the fans,” Thom said.

Some say "Who Dat" came from an 1890's jazz song, but when it comes to modern-day ownership of "Who Dat," Arieaux said the more sources of it, the less likely it is that anyone owns it, and ownership all depends on what people think of when they see or hear "Who Dat."

“Do they think about fans supporting or do they think about, oh, it's something really from the Saints and the NFL? And I don't know the answer to that,” Arieaux said.

The problem is that the phrase is 2 decades old. Oh course now that they are in the SB and "Who Dat" sales are through the roof that people realize the money that they are losing. They are trying to claim the Fleur de Lis as well? That is complete bull####.

Wow. The NFL sure knows how to alienate its fan base. There goes the No Fun League again... Unless the NFL or the Saints have a copyright on the phrase then the NFL has no case. And as for the fleur de lis...it is the national symbol of France for god's sake! The saints stole if from France if you want to get precise about it. This is the worst side of capitalism and it really drives home how the NFL is a business that is really good at playing upon people's emotions to exploit them to make money.

So you are in favor of just letting anyone sell anything, with no regard to copyright laws? Just throwing the laws out the window, so that some scammers can sell t-shirts?These people are trying to circumvent the laws to make a quick buck on the Saints success. They aren't honest business-people that the NFL is "out to get". They are taking the Saints (and the NFL's) copyrights and trying to make money off of them illegally.

 

[Moldy Potato]

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Whoownswhodat-82841572.html

by Katie Moore / Eyewitness News

Posted on January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Updated today at 6:58 AM

******

NEW ORLEANS - As the Saints' appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase "Who Dat."

But who really owns "Who Dat"? Does anyone? Who is a “Who Dat?” What is a “Who Dat?” Who owns the phrase, "Who Dat?"

They're all questions Fleurty Girl t-shirt shop owner Lauren Thom is being forced to answer.

“The NFL is not a company that I want to rock the boat with, but I definitely want to look into it further to see what my rights are,” Thom said.

Two weeks ago, Thom got a cease and desist order from the NFL.

“They're telling me not to print anymore shirts and to get rid of the inventory that I have because it says the words 'Who dat' and it has a gold fleur de lis on the shirt,” she said.

But Thom’s t-shirt isn’t the only one the NFL has a problem with. Storyville t-shirt shop also got a cease and desist order for two of their t-shirts.

“I really thought the 'Who Dat' was something that belonged to the people more than to the Saints or to the NFL or anything else,” said Storyville co-owner Josh Harvey.

According to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson, "Any unauthorized use of the Saints colors and other [marks] designed to create the illusion of an affiliation with the Saints is equally a violation of the Saints trademark rights because it allows a third party to 'free ride' by profiting from confusion of the team's fans, who want to show support for the Saints."

Loyola Law School intellectual property professor Ray Arieaux said the ownership of 'Who Dat' may be a gray area.

“Is there some unfair trade taking place because maybe the public does associate that with the Saints? The question is what does the public associate with 'Who Dat,'" Arieaux asked.

And the NFL isn't the only company claiming ownership of the phrase.

Sal and Steve Monistere recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties and incorporated the "Who Dat" chant into it. Aaron Neville recorded it, and performed with our own Eric Paulsen in an early '80's video version.

Because the song helped create the widespread use of the “Who Dat” chant, the Monisteres and their company, Who Dat, inc., say they own "Who Dat."

“If they really do own it, what they want to do is, we'll come out together and have a shirt that says ‘Defend Who Dat.’ Because it started by the fans and its for the fans,” Thom said.

Some say "Who Dat" came from an 1890's jazz song, but when it comes to modern-day ownership of "Who Dat," Arieaux said the more sources of it, the less likely it is that anyone owns it, and ownership all depends on what people think of when they see or hear "Who Dat."

“Do they think about fans supporting or do they think about, oh, it's something really from the Saints and the NFL? And I don't know the answer to that,” Arieaux said.

The problem is that the phrase is 2 decades old. Oh course now that they are in the SB and "Who Dat" sales are through the roof that people realize the money that they are losing. They are trying to claim the Fleur de Lis as well? That is complete bull####.

Wow. The NFL sure knows how to alienate its fan base. There goes the No Fun League again... Unless the NFL or the Saints have a copyright on the phrase then the NFL has no case. And as for the fleur de lis...it is the national symbol of France for god's sake! The saints stole if from France if you want to get precise about it. This is the worst side of capitalism and it really drives home how the NFL is a business that is really good at playing upon people's emotions to exploit them to make money.

So you are in favor of just letting anyone sell anything, with no regard to copyright laws? Just throwing the laws out the window, so that some scammers can sell t-shirts?These people are trying to circumvent the laws to make a quick buck on the Saints success. They aren't honest business-people that the NFL is "out to get". They are taking the Saints (and the NFL's) copyrights and trying to make money off of them illegally.

I'm not disagreeing with your argument. But your classification of these merchants is a sign that you don't quite understand New Orleans culture and our relationship with the Saints.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Somebody better tell Mike Brown to get a little TM thingy next to the Who Dey on the Bengals home page

I have to say that the title does seem to be misleading as it would seem to be appropriate to say NFL demands stores not to see UNAUTHORIZED "Who Dat" gear. But anyway that of course led to a trip to the Saints website to see what was available and the Saints actually have some interesting items.

I totally want to send one to Pat Robertson

They love them some kickers down there!

-QG

 

[Doug B]

The screen-printing black market in N.O. is huge. The NFL and all their lawyers won't be able to put much of a dent in these sales.

 

[QuizGuy66]

The screen-printing black market in N.O. is huge. The NFL and all their lawyers won't be able to put much of a dent in these sales.

True Dat

 

[Gopher State]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

If the nfl gave in to who dat, what would be next Packer Attackers, Favre hater shirts? You gota draw the line when your operating a business as big as the NFL

 

[SproutDaddy]

This is a shame. It's exactly what I hate about the American culture. Just goes to show how evil capitalism can be and how imperfect of an ideal it is.

 

[MG345]

Reminds me a little bit of the 12th man fiasco between Seattle Seahawks and Texas A&M.

 

[ATC1]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

If the nfl gave in to who dat, what would be next Packer Attackers, Favre hater shirts? You gota draw the line when your operating a business as big as the NFL

Problem is that the NFL already gave into "Who Dat" for close to 20 years. There have been shirts made in the past by smaller bussinesses trying to make a buck. Why wait until right now. If it was to make a statement and not about the money it would/should have been done long ago.

 

[Zoomanji]

The screen-printing black market in N.O. is huge. The NFL and all their lawyers won't be able to put much of a dent in these sales.

True Dat TM

Fixed

 

[Sweet Love]

Somebody better tell Mike Brown to get a little TM thingy next to the Who Dey on the Bengals home page

I have to say that the title does seem to be misleading as it would seem to be appropriate to say NFL demands stores not to see UNAUTHORIZED "Who Dat" gear. But anyway that of course led to a trip to the Saints website to see what was available and the Saints actually have some interesting items.

I totally want to send one to Pat Robertson

They love them some kickers down there!

-QG

$43 for a Mort Andersen T-shirt?!?! I doubt his own mother would even pay that price...

 

[Darth Cheney]

What about Who Dis? Can they take that too?

 

[ATC1]

Somebody better tell Mike Brown to get a little TM thingy next to the Who Dey on the Bengals home page

I have to say that the title does seem to be misleading as it would seem to be appropriate to say NFL demands stores not to see UNAUTHORIZED "Who Dat" gear. But anyway that of course led to a trip to the Saints website to see what was available and the Saints actually have some interesting items.

I totally want to send one to Pat Robertson

They love them some kickers down there!

-QG

$43 for a Mort Andersen T-shirt?!?! I doubt his own mother would even pay that price...

Now for a Grarett Hartley shirt right after the NFC Championship game, I bet they could have gotten double. The boy has done nothing yet, but his kick will go down as one if not the greatest kick in saints history.

 

[FunkyTeaParty]

What about Who Dis? Can they take that too?

I think Crazy Alice has squatters rights on that.

 

[FUBAR]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

If the nfl gave in to who dat, what would be next Packer Attackers, Favre hater shirts? You gota draw the line when your operating a business as big as the NFL

sure, and any company selling Green and yellow shirts should be sued. I'm all for copyright laws but they better have paid some money to Bill Cody for using the "Buffalo Bills", France for the Saints symbol, whoever made the original horseshoe for the Colts, the natives for the Redskins, Arrowhead... etc.

 

[IDrinkyourMilkshake]

Somebody better tell Mike Brown to get a little TM thingy next to the Who Dey on the Bengals home page

I have to say that the title does seem to be misleading as it would seem to be appropriate to say NFL demands stores not to see UNAUTHORIZED "Who Dat" gear. But anyway that of course led to a trip to the Saints website to see what was available and the Saints actually have some interesting items.

I totally want to send one to Pat Robertson

They love them some kickers down there!

-QG

Why do the Saints have an official hot sauce? A little odd, no?

 

[valhallan]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.

On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:

If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.

You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.

So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).

So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.

The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

Seems like there could be an argument made that "who dat" is and has always been meant to identify a fellow Saints fan, not endorse or associate with the team itself. It's a hard to distinction to grasp, particularly if your team has experienced a lot of success, but maintaining fan-dom for a historically bad team instills a sense of camaraderie with other resilient fans that exists apart from the team itself. You greet each other with "who dat" as a way of acknowledging, "yes, I'm with you bro".

 

[mattdaddy]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.

On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:

If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.

You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.

So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).

So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.

The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

Seems like there could be an argument made that "who dat" is and has always been meant to identify a fellow Saints fan, not endorse or associate with the team itself. It's a hard to distinction to grasp, particularly if your team has experienced a lot of success, but maintaining fan-dom for a historically bad team instills a sense of camaraderie with other resilient fans that exists apart from the team itself. You greet each other with "who dat" as a way of acknowledging, "yes, I'm with you bro".

Take the bag off your head. They're in the superbowl.

 

[FUBAR]

they should sue for this too.

 

[ATC1]

they should sue for this too.

Staff may need to take this smile down. It can be associated with a certain NFL team.

 

[QuizGuy66]

they should sue for this too.

LOL great posting A man with a sense of history.In terms of Who Dat as a greeting, well I know at least I can identify with that sense although of course it would be Who Dey -QG

 

[Gadabout]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.

On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:

If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.

You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.

So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).

So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.

The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

Seems like there could be an argument made that "who dat" is and has always been meant to identify a fellow Saints fan, not endorse or associate with the team itself. It's a hard to distinction to grasp, particularly if your team has experienced a lot of success, but maintaining fan-dom for a historically bad team instills a sense of camaraderie with other resilient fans that exists apart from the team itself. You greet each other with "who dat" as a way of acknowledging, "yes, I'm with you bro".

True. Just like that 'Are you a Who Dat?' song. Wonder if they're also gonna crack down on the "I Believe" that's been around for 20+ years as well.

 

[ATC1]

they should sue for this too.

 

[mattdaddy]

they should sue for this too.

Yeah the NFL wasn't too concerned with rights to the Aints. Personally I don't think they care whether or not they have a valid legal claim. They know that the cease and desist order is a cheap way to slow down production of these shirts so that they sell more of the offical NFL shirts. There will be a huge black market in New Orleans and you can bet that 99% of buyers and 100% of vendors of these black market shirts won't give 2 sh*** about what the NFL thinks. So all the league has really done is made themself look petty.

 

[shader]

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Whoownswhodat-82841572.html

by Katie Moore / Eyewitness News

Posted on January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Updated today at 6:58 AM

******

NEW ORLEANS - As the Saints' appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase "Who Dat."

But who really owns "Who Dat"? Does anyone? Who is a “Who Dat?” What is a “Who Dat?” Who owns the phrase, "Who Dat?"

They're all questions Fleurty Girl t-shirt shop owner Lauren Thom is being forced to answer.

“The NFL is not a company that I want to rock the boat with, but I definitely want to look into it further to see what my rights are,” Thom said.

Two weeks ago, Thom got a cease and desist order from the NFL.

“They're telling me not to print anymore shirts and to get rid of the inventory that I have because it says the words 'Who dat' and it has a gold fleur de lis on the shirt,” she said.

But Thom’s t-shirt isn’t the only one the NFL has a problem with. Storyville t-shirt shop also got a cease and desist order for two of their t-shirts.

“I really thought the 'Who Dat' was something that belonged to the people more than to the Saints or to the NFL or anything else,” said Storyville co-owner Josh Harvey.

According to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson, "Any unauthorized use of the Saints colors and other [marks] designed to create the illusion of an affiliation with the Saints is equally a violation of the Saints trademark rights because it allows a third party to 'free ride' by profiting from confusion of the team's fans, who want to show support for the Saints."

Loyola Law School intellectual property professor Ray Arieaux said the ownership of 'Who Dat' may be a gray area.

“Is there some unfair trade taking place because maybe the public does associate that with the Saints? The question is what does the public associate with 'Who Dat,'" Arieaux asked.

And the NFL isn't the only company claiming ownership of the phrase.

Sal and Steve Monistere recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties and incorporated the "Who Dat" chant into it. Aaron Neville recorded it, and performed with our own Eric Paulsen in an early '80's video version.

Because the song helped create the widespread use of the “Who Dat” chant, the Monisteres and their company, Who Dat, inc., say they own "Who Dat."

“If they really do own it, what they want to do is, we'll come out together and have a shirt that says ‘Defend Who Dat.’ Because it started by the fans and its for the fans,” Thom said.

Some say "Who Dat" came from an 1890's jazz song, but when it comes to modern-day ownership of "Who Dat," Arieaux said the more sources of it, the less likely it is that anyone owns it, and ownership all depends on what people think of when they see or hear "Who Dat."

“Do they think about fans supporting or do they think about, oh, it's something really from the Saints and the NFL? And I don't know the answer to that,” Arieaux said.

The problem is that the phrase is 2 decades old. Oh course now that they are in the SB and "Who Dat" sales are through the roof that people realize the money that they are losing. They are trying to claim the Fleur de Lis as well? That is complete bull####.

Wow. The NFL sure knows how to alienate its fan base. There goes the No Fun League again... Unless the NFL or the Saints have a copyright on the phrase then the NFL has no case. And as for the fleur de lis...it is the national symbol of France for god's sake! The saints stole if from France if you want to get precise about it. This is the worst side of capitalism and it really drives home how the NFL is a business that is really good at playing upon people's emotions to exploit them to make money.

So you are in favor of just letting anyone sell anything, with no regard to copyright laws? Just throwing the laws out the window, so that some scammers can sell t-shirts?These people are trying to circumvent the laws to make a quick buck on the Saints success. They aren't honest business-people that the NFL is "out to get". They are taking the Saints (and the NFL's) copyrights and trying to make money off of them illegally.

I'm not disagreeing with your argument. But your classification of these merchants is a sign that you don't quite understand New Orleans culture and our relationship with the Saints.

So your relationship with the Saints is so good that you want to....screw them out of their fair share of the money?I am a huge Titans fan and Crimson Tide fan. When i buy stuff, I know it supports the Titans (though indirectly through revenue sharing) and it supports Alabama. If I buy from a street corner vendor who created his own stuff, I only support that person.

If you have a special relationship with the Saints, then why would you buy stuff that doesn't "give back" to that team?

 

[Titus Pullo]

The screen-printing black market in N.O. is huge. The NFL and all their lawyers won't be able to put much of a dent in these sales.

©True Dat

 

[SuperJohn96]

I'm suing the NFL, the Saints, and the city of New Orleans for poor grammar.

:whoisthat:

 

[mattdaddy]

I'm trying to find the "Who Dat" shirts on the NFL Shop website but I can't find them. I think the NFL is confusing the demand for a who dat shirt and the demand for an NFC championship shirt. Either that or they don't like the phrase and are trying to kill it.

 

[CalBear]

So your relationship with the Saints is so good that you want to....screw them out of their fair share of the money?

Why is it their "fair share"? Because they say so?The NFL doesn't own "Who Dat" any more than they own "The Big Game." They want more than their fair share; they want revenues for sales of "trademarks" which don't belong to them.

 

[mattdaddy]

I'm absolutely buying one of these shirts

Screw Dat

I love New Orleans

 

[Holy Schneikes]

So your relationship with the Saints is so good that you want to....screw them out of their fair share of the money?

Why is it their "fair share"? Because they say so?The NFL doesn't own "Who Dat" any more than they own "The Big Game." They want more than their fair share; they want revenues for sales of "trademarks" which don't belong to them.

Like I said before, I'm not trademark attorney. But I think there is a very big difference between selling a T-shirt with a good chunk of the Saints logo, in the Saints colors, with a phrase commonly associated with the Saints, and trying to grab "The Big Game". I would not support the latter, but I don't have a big problem with the former. The T-shirt guy is selling a Saints T-shirt without paying the company that owns the Saints.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

If the nfl gave in to who dat, what would be next Packer Attackers, Favre hater shirts? You gota draw the line when your operating a business as big as the NFL

sure, and any company selling Green and yellow shirts should be sued. I'm all for copyright laws but they better have paid some money to Bill Cody for using the "Buffalo Bills", France for the Saints symbol, whoever made the original horseshoe for the Colts, the natives for the Redskins, Arrowhead... etc.

A company selling green and yellow shirts designed to identified easily as a "Packers" shirt COULD be sued. A company selling some random shirt that happened to have those two colors is NOT likely to be sued. It's not about "owning" "green and yellow" or "Who Dat", it's about selling something that is DESIGNED to imply a relationship with a particular entity that you don't have any association with (or pay any royalties to).If I sell a computer and put it in a box that has a design intended to look like stylized cowhide and call it a "Dateway", I'm going to get sued. But it's not because Gatway "owns" the cowhide pattern, it's because I'm trying to profit from someone else's name/investment. Sorry about the dated example, I just happened to be looking at my laptop box at the moment. There is a large range here, and the NFL at times HAS been a little aggressive in defending it's "turf" IMO. But in this particular situation it seems pretty straightforward. Trademarks and copyrights exist for a (good IMO) reason.

 

[dwarfboy]

This is a shame. It's exactly what I hate about the American culture. Just goes to show how evil capitalism can be and how imperfect of an ideal it is.

What "evil" is being perpetrated here? How is printing and selling gray market T-shirts or telling them not to do so "evil?"

 

[BaBastage]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

You make a valid argument, but who's to say the NFL doesn't owe Who Dat Inc for the use of the term? Has the NFL been profiting from its use?Now we're arguing chicken and egg.I'm playing devil's advocate here. But for the record, copyright and trademark laws just piss me off. (And don't get me started on DRM, and yes, I am a business owner who has both had to defend my trademark and been challenged upon use of someone else's.)

 

[FUBAR]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

If the nfl gave in to who dat, what would be next Packer Attackers, Favre hater shirts? You gota draw the line when your operating a business as big as the NFL

sure, and any company selling Green and yellow shirts should be sued. I'm all for copyright laws but they better have paid some money to Bill Cody for using the "Buffalo Bills", France for the Saints symbol, whoever made the original horseshoe for the Colts, the natives for the Redskins, Arrowhead... etc.

A company selling green and yellow shirts designed to identified easily as a "Packers" shirt COULD be sued. A company selling some random shirt that happened to have those two colors is NOT likely to be sued. It's not about "owning" "green and yellow" or "Who Dat", it's about selling something that is DESIGNED to imply a relationship with a particular entity that you don't have any association with (or pay any royalties to).If I sell a computer and put it in a box that has a design intended to look like stylized cowhide and call it a "Dateway", I'm going to get sued. But it's not because Gatway "owns" the cowhide pattern, it's because I'm trying to profit from someone else's name/investment. Sorry about the dated example, I just happened to be looking at my laptop box at the moment. There is a large range here, and the NFL at times HAS been a little aggressive in defending it's "turf" IMO. But in this particular situation it seems pretty straightforward. Trademarks and copyrights exist for a (good IMO) reason.

It doesn't matter to me either way but the NFL benefits from an implied relationship with Buffalo Bill, various native tribes, etc.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.

On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:

If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.

You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.

So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).

So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.

The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

Seems like there could be an argument made that "who dat" is and has always been meant to identify a fellow Saints fan, not endorse or associate with the team itself. It's a hard to distinction to grasp, particularly if your team has experienced a lot of success, but maintaining fan-dom for a historically bad team instills a sense of camaraderie with other resilient fans that exists apart from the team itself. You greet each other with "who dat" as a way of acknowledging, "yes, I'm with you bro".

You could make that argument, and if it goes to court they probably will (as many others have in similar situations). But as you mention, it's rough to make a distinction between identifying with "fans" of a TEAM vs the team itself. To me, it boils down to the team either way. If you could use that argument as easily as you just did, it would become very difficult to protect any trademarks of any kind. "Oh, that's not the Nike swoosh on that shirt, it's meant as an indication of membership in our Nike shirt owner's club."

 

[BaBastage]

This is a shame. It's exactly what I hate about the American culture. Just goes to show how evil capitalism can be and how imperfect of an ideal it is.

Quit making broad generalizations. Every governmental structure has its strengths and weaknesses. Show me one that works flawlessly.The problem isn't with pure capitalism, the problem is with unrestricted capitalism. But yeah, a lot of our government is broken, and run by the capitalist elite.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

If the nfl gave in to who dat, what would be next Packer Attackers, Favre hater shirts? You gota draw the line when your operating a business as big as the NFL

sure, and any company selling Green and yellow shirts should be sued. I'm all for copyright laws but they better have paid some money to Bill Cody for using the "Buffalo Bills", France for the Saints symbol, whoever made the original horseshoe for the Colts, the natives for the Redskins, Arrowhead... etc.

A company selling green and yellow shirts designed to identified easily as a "Packers" shirt COULD be sued. A company selling some random shirt that happened to have those two colors is NOT likely to be sued. It's not about "owning" "green and yellow" or "Who Dat", it's about selling something that is DESIGNED to imply a relationship with a particular entity that you don't have any association with (or pay any royalties to).If I sell a computer and put it in a box that has a design intended to look like stylized cowhide and call it a "Dateway", I'm going to get sued. But it's not because Gatway "owns" the cowhide pattern, it's because I'm trying to profit from someone else's name/investment. Sorry about the dated example, I just happened to be looking at my laptop box at the moment. There is a large range here, and the NFL at times HAS been a little aggressive in defending it's "turf" IMO. But in this particular situation it seems pretty straightforward. Trademarks and copyrights exist for a (good IMO) reason.

It doesn't matter to me either way but the NFL benefits from an implied relationship with Buffalo Bill, various native tribes, etc.

I get the Buffalo bill example. But I'm not smart enough to know where that association came from originally, whether a copyright/trademark ever existed for Buffalo Bill at that time, or whether any of it would still apply today. But even if the NFL was/is infringing on some group's trademark, it doesn't mean some other group couldn't be infringing on theirs.I don't get the native tribe thing at all. I don't see any "Cherokee" team names or anything that could really be stretched into something associated with a company or a particular group or organization. Those native American oriented team names MAY be attacked for other reasons, but I doubt any trademarks would apply.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

There are always two sides to these things. I usually end up going against the grain and "defending" the NFL in situations like this, because few will. People love the little guy.On the surface, yes it seems ridiculous that the NFL would try to claim they "own" a group of colors or a phrase like "Who dat". But I'm not sure that's what they are really claiming. I'm no expert of trademarks etc, but I think the basics boil down to this:If I have a successful "brand", and someone else is trying to capitalize on that brand for their own benefit (without kicking anything back to me or without my permission), it's copyright (or trademark or whatever) infringement.You can't make a line of clothing with something that looks a lot like the Nike "swoosh" and sell it and expect to get away with it. Does Nike own the "checkmark"? Of course not, but if you are intentionally trying to ride their coat-tails, it's a no-go.So that's the basic question here, is the guy selling the T-shirts trying to identify the T-shirts as "Saints" T-shirts? Of course he is. The combination of the phrase, the colors, and the fleur de lis is screaming a relationship with the Saints football team. And the NFL "owns" the Saints. If the guy wanted to associate "Who Dat" (or the fleur de lis independently, or the color scheme independently) with a product completely unrelated to football etc the NFL obviously wouldn't care, and there would be no suit (or a very unsuccessful one).So the NFL doesn't "own" "Who dat", but they don't need to in order for their to be cause for legal action.The NFL is big company, they own a brand that they invest a LOT of money into, and they have the right to prevent other people from making money by associated themselves with that brand - just like every other company in the world.

You make a valid argument, but who's to say the NFL doesn't owe Who Dat Inc for the use of the term? Has the NFL been profiting from its use?Now we're arguing chicken and egg.I'm playing devil's advocate here. But for the record, copyright and trademark laws just piss me off. (And don't get me started on DRM, and yes, I am a business owner who has both had to defend my trademark and been challenged upon use of someone else's.)

I don't see a chicken or an egg. It's possible that a situation like that could exist, but I haven't seen any evidence of it, nor has anyone claimed it. On the other hand, while I didn't see the T-shirts myself, I believe they exist, and I don't think the printers were paying for the rights to identify with the Saints.I am absolutely certain that there are flaws in/problems with the copyright laws. But that doesn't mean that companies shouldn't have the right to stop outside parties from making money from their product.

 

[az_prof]

Maybe they should prohibit grocery stores from selling brown bags....

 

[az_prof]

http://www.wwltv.com/news/Whoownswhodat-82841572.html

by Katie Moore / Eyewitness News

Posted on January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Updated today at 6:58 AM

******

NEW ORLEANS - As the Saints' appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase "Who Dat."

But who really owns "Who Dat"? Does anyone? Who is a “Who Dat?” What is a “Who Dat?” Who owns the phrase, "Who Dat?"

They're all questions Fleurty Girl t-shirt shop owner Lauren Thom is being forced to answer.

“The NFL is not a company that I want to rock the boat with, but I definitely want to look into it further to see what my rights are,” Thom said.

Two weeks ago, Thom got a cease and desist order from the NFL.

“They're telling me not to print anymore shirts and to get rid of the inventory that I have because it says the words 'Who dat' and it has a gold fleur de lis on the shirt,” she said.

But Thom’s t-shirt isn’t the only one the NFL has a problem with. Storyville t-shirt shop also got a cease and desist order for two of their t-shirts.

“I really thought the 'Who Dat' was something that belonged to the people more than to the Saints or to the NFL or anything else,” said Storyville co-owner Josh Harvey.

According to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson, "Any unauthorized use of the Saints colors and other [marks] designed to create the illusion of an affiliation with the Saints is equally a violation of the Saints trademark rights because it allows a third party to 'free ride' by profiting from confusion of the team's fans, who want to show support for the Saints."

Loyola Law School intellectual property professor Ray Arieaux said the ownership of 'Who Dat' may be a gray area.

“Is there some unfair trade taking place because maybe the public does associate that with the Saints? The question is what does the public associate with 'Who Dat,'" Arieaux asked.

And the NFL isn't the only company claiming ownership of the phrase.

Sal and Steve Monistere recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties and incorporated the "Who Dat" chant into it. Aaron Neville recorded it, and performed with our own Eric Paulsen in an early '80's video version.

Because the song helped create the widespread use of the “Who Dat” chant, the Monisteres and their company, Who Dat, inc., say they own "Who Dat."

“If they really do own it, what they want to do is, we'll come out together and have a shirt that says ‘Defend Who Dat.’ Because it started by the fans and its for the fans,” Thom said.

Some say "Who Dat" came from an 1890's jazz song, but when it comes to modern-day ownership of "Who Dat," Arieaux said the more sources of it, the less likely it is that anyone owns it, and ownership all depends on what people think of when they see or hear "Who Dat."

“Do they think about fans supporting or do they think about, oh, it's something really from the Saints and the NFL? And I don't know the answer to that,” Arieaux said.

The problem is that the phrase is 2 decades old. Oh course now that they are in the SB and "Who Dat" sales are through the roof that people realize the money that they are losing. They are trying to claim the Fleur de Lis as well? That is complete bull####.

Wow. The NFL sure knows how to alienate its fan base. There goes the No Fun League again... Unless the NFL or the Saints have a copyright on the phrase then the NFL has no case. And as for the fleur de lis...it is the national symbol of France for god's sake! The saints stole if from France if you want to get precise about it. This is the worst side of capitalism and it really drives home how the NFL is a business that is really good at playing upon people's emotions to exploit them to make money.

So you are in favor of just letting anyone sell anything, with no regard to copyright laws? Just throwing the laws out the window, so that some scammers can sell t-shirts?These people are trying to circumvent the laws to make a quick buck on the Saints success. They aren't honest business-people that the NFL is "out to get". They are taking the Saints (and the NFL's) copyrights and trying to make money off of them illegally.

I am saying that NO ONE has a right to copyright certain universal things....DNA for example, national symbols, or folk sayings. The fleur de lis is not owned by a company; it is the national symbol of france. Who Dat is a folk saying that was not invented by the New Orleans Saints; they don't own it. When big Business tries to stop small business from making a profit off of these universal and transcendent ideas and symbols I think it stinks to high heaven.

 

[FUBAR]

I get the Buffalo bill example. But I'm not smart enough to know where that association came from originally, whether a copyright/trademark ever existed for Buffalo Bill at that time, or whether any of it would still apply today. But even if the NFL was/is infringing on some group's trademark, it doesn't mean some other group couldn't be infringing on theirs.I don't get the native tribe thing at all. I don't see any "Cherokee" team names or anything that could really be stretched into something associated with a company or a particular group or organization. Those native American oriented team names MAY be attacked for other reasons, but I doubt any trademarks would apply.

Probably no copyright exists for Buffalo Bill (Bill Cody) but I haven't seen one for Who Dat either.

 

[crowe1130]

This is definitely a very gray area. There is no evidence in the USPTO of the NFL or Saints trademarking "who dat" (though my search was very quick). So they probably don't have a strong case on those grounds alone. Note that the "NFL spokesman" doesn't actually claim that "who dat" is the infringement, but the other elements of the shirt.

Where they have a much stronger case is in the combination of the Saints' colors & the fleur de lis. The fewer of these characteristics on the shirt, the tougher the NFL's argument would be.

White shirt with a black "who dat" on it: No case

Black shirt with a gold "who dat" on it: Probably still no case (although typeface/font similar to the Saints' could make it stronger)

Black shirt with a gold "who dat" & fleur de lis: Pretty strong case

By the way, copyright and trademark are different things.

 

[Mr. Pink]

I thought Bum Phillips started the phrase "Who Dat" when he coached New Orleans (1981-1985). Anyone recall that phrase existing before he came to town?

 

[Roger Goodell]

Mr. Bryant, please discontinue use of this smilie.Always,Roger

 

[footballsavvy]

Its about money, not reason.

 

[az_prof]

This is definitely a very gray area. There is no evidence in the USPTO of the NFL or Saints trademarking "who dat" (though my search was very quick). So they probably don't have a strong case on those grounds alone. Note that the "NFL spokesman" doesn't actually claim that "who dat" is the infringement, but the other elements of the shirt.Where they have a much stronger case is in the combination of the Saints' colors & the fleur de lis. The fewer of these characteristics on the shirt, the tougher the NFL's argument would be.White shirt with a black "who dat" on it: No caseBlack shirt with a gold "who dat" on it: Probably still no case (although typeface/font similar to the Saints' could make it stronger)Black shirt with a gold "who dat" & fleur de lis: Pretty strong caseBy the way, copyright and trademark are different things.

Sounds like you know what you are talking about. Doesn't it matter at all that the Fleur de lis is the national symbol of France? That would be a bit like a team taking an element from the US flag and incorporating into their jersey and saying that they have ownership of the symbol. If they trademark it could they sue the US government for flying their own flag? Seems absurd.