NFL trying to trademark "Big Game" (1 Viewer)

[3C's]

link



Ban churches from showing the Super B.., Big Ga..., uh, that game before the Pro Bowl (guess that isn't yet). Show games on your network that a majority of the fans can't get. Threaten to force fantasy leagues to pay for stats and use of the players names. Take away home games from NFL cities so you can go play overseas.

 

[ThePittbully]

Yea this is getting pretty redonkulous. Can you seriously trademark something as vague as "Big Game"?

 

[grind]

link



Ban churches from showing the Super B.., Big Ga..., uh, that game before the Pro Bowl (guess that isn't yet). Show games on your network that a majority of the fans can't get. Threaten to force fantasy leagues to pay for stats and use of the players names. Take away home games from NFL cities so you can go play overseas.

This will never, ever, ever, ever, happen. I hope the NFL spends billions of dollars trying to get this trademark. As a sports fan, I use the term Big Game many times while not referencing the Super Bowl. Any judge should be able to see how a general term such as "Big Game" could mean many, many things and the NFL shouldn't have eclusive rights to the term.

 

[trader jake]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?

Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl....

The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

 

[jonessed]

Yea this is getting pretty redonkulous. Can you seriously trademark something as vague as "Big Game"?

If you can something is wrong with our trademark laws.

 

[CalBear]

There is only one Big Game.

 

[ffweasel]

I don't see it happening.

Big Game

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl. Whether or not you think the NFL should be able to trademark Super Bowl, and prevent unaffiliated companies from using it for their own commercial interests, saying "Big Game" is quite clearly just an end run around this. It's just pushing form over substance, which seems silly if you're legitimately concerned with protecting these rights (which while open as an intellectual matter, is quite clearly closed as a legal matter).I don't read this and say "Why is the NFL trying to stop people from using "Big Game"?, but rather my reaction is "does it serve any useful purpose to allow companies to get around our trademark laws and blatantly violate the spirit of the rule?" I don't think there is. You may find it entertaining that radio promotions say the "Big Game", but that's precisely the point: we all know what they're trying to do.Just my

 

[The Man With No Name]

Torry Holt should trademark it.

 

[QUEZILLA]

Small Game

 

[Chase Stuart]

Torry Holt should trademark it.

 

[GregR_2]

But the Big Game also has a very specific application for Stanford University and UC Berkeley, whose annual football game dates back to 1892. It has been known as the Big Game since 1902, according to San Francisco author Ron Fimrite, who is writing a history of Cal football.

As Bob Murphy, a former Stanford baseball player who has been an analyst on Stanford radio broadcasts for many years, said, "This game started way before there was anything called the National Football League. Besides, it's such a common expression, I don't know how you would trademark it. It's like copyrighting 'hello' and 'goodbye.' It's kind of silly.''

Former Cal football coach Joe Kapp fumed when he heard about the NFL plan. "Traditions and the names of traditions are meaningful in college football,'' he said. "What's next? The game between the two greatest universities in the world that play big-time football is the Big Game. It's a tradition. It's history. That's the true meaning of sport.''

Based on that statement, some teams other than Cal and Stanford must call their game the Big Game too.

 

[AB in DC]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

 

[Chase Stuart]

But the Big Game also has a very specific application for Stanford University and UC Berkeley, whose annual football game dates back to 1892. It has been known as the Big Game since 1902, according to San Francisco author Ron Fimrite, who is writing a history of Cal football.

As Bob Murphy, a former Stanford baseball player who has been an analyst on Stanford radio broadcasts for many years, said, "This game started way before there was anything called the National Football League. Besides, it's such a common expression, I don't know how you would trademark it. It's like copyrighting 'hello' and 'goodbye.' It's kind of silly.''

Former Cal football coach Joe Kapp fumed when he heard about the NFL plan. "Traditions and the names of traditions are meaningful in college football,'' he said. "What's next? The game between the two greatest universities in the world that play big-time football is the Big Game. It's a tradition. It's history. That's the true meaning of sport.''

Based on that statement, some teams other than Cal and Stanford must call their game the Big Game too.

I thought that too, but I left it out there for someone funnier than me.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

 

[GregR_2]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

The article said:

Although the NFL's McCarthy said that the league's trademark application concerned only "a football game played on a Sunday in February'' and thus wouldn't affect the game at Stanford or Cal, Drucker said, "Cal and Stanford still don't want anybody to have rights to a mark that references their game. The timing of the game is somewhat irrelevant.''

The thing I want to know though is how on earth they could enforce that trademark if it was granted. Take a commercial that says, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game". How can the NFL prove they were talking about a football game played on a Sunday in February as opposed to a basketball, hockey, or any other type of game played pretty much whenever. It isn't like they say, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game of football on a Sunday in February."Not a lawyer but it just seems like they couldn't defend the trademark in the majority of cases. They'd have to have very specific language in the use to be able to prove it was about the Super Bowl.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

"Come on down to Manny's Gizmo Shop. Buy before Friday and get your big screen, high-def TV delivered in time to watch all those great commercials!!!!"

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

The article said:

Although the NFL's McCarthy said that the league's trademark application concerned only "a football game played on a Sunday in February'' and thus wouldn't affect the game at Stanford or Cal, Drucker said, "Cal and Stanford still don't want anybody to have rights to a mark that references their game. The timing of the game is somewhat irrelevant.''

The thing I want to know though is how on earth they could enforce that trademark if it was granted. Take a commercial that says, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game". How can the NFL prove they were talking about a football game played on a Sunday in February as opposed to a basketball, hockey, or any other type of game played pretty much whenever. It isn't like they say, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game of football on a Sunday in February."Not a lawyer but it just seems like they couldn't defend the trademark in the majority of cases. They'd have to have very specific language in the use to be able to prove it was about the Super Bowl.

If the commercial aired after championship weekend and before the start of the Super Bowl, it would refer to the SB. For the other 50 weeks, it would not.(FWIW, the NFL would probably try and stretch it out from the start of the NFL playoffs, or the end of the NCAA BCS game. But the most realistic result would be the two week stretch named. Plus, if the NFL is actually suing a company that used the Big Game phrase during an advertisement, when the advertisement was played would go a long way towards deciding the case.)

 

[grind]

I doubt they can just get the trademark rights for just a two week period in Jan/Feb. I'm sure they'll say their intent, if given the trademark, is only to enforce it during this two week period. Of course, if they get it and they realize they could make even more money by enforcing it year round, what do you think they will do? It is called greed. Greed will easily take over after they get the trade mark on the phrase.

I have to say this is one of the dumbest things I have heard in quite some time. Really NFL. Do you think this is going to help the cause? Next year, bars will be saying, "come down to see THE GAME this Sunday". The year after, the NFL will be back at it trying to trademark "The Game". The following year, bars will be saying come on in and enjoy FOOTBALL this Sunday. Fact is, advertisers can come up with a gazillion ways to say Super Bowl without saying Super Bowl the week or two leading up to the game simply because it is such a big event that really doesn't need a very specific reference for people to realize the meaning or what is going on.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

The article said:

Although the NFL's McCarthy said that the league's trademark application concerned only "a football game played on a Sunday in February'' and thus wouldn't affect the game at Stanford or Cal, Drucker said, "Cal and Stanford still don't want anybody to have rights to a mark that references their game. The timing of the game is somewhat irrelevant.''

The thing I want to know though is how on earth they could enforce that trademark if it was granted. Take a commercial that says, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game". How can the NFL prove they were talking about a football game played on a Sunday in February as opposed to a basketball, hockey, or any other type of game played pretty much whenever. It isn't like they say, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game of football on a Sunday in February."Not a lawyer but it just seems like they couldn't defend the trademark in the majority of cases. They'd have to have very specific language in the use to be able to prove it was about the Super Bowl.

If the commercial aired after championship weekend and before the start of the Super Bowl, it would refer to the SB. For the other 50 weeks, it would not.(FWIW, the NFL would probably try and stretch it out from the start of the NFL playoffs, or the end of the NCAA BCS game. But the most realistic result would be the two week stretch named. Plus, if the NFL is actually suing a company that used the Big Game phrase during an advertisement, when the advertisement was played would go a long way towards deciding the case.)

It couldn't be limited to commercials that aired after the championships or even during the playoffs. A lot of what they are trying to quash are promotions that involve trips to the game - those air all season or even all year. We'll now have to hear "The Championship in Feburary" or win a trip to "That Game in [Miami, Jacksonville, San Diego, etc.]"

 

[grind]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

The article said:

Although the NFL's McCarthy said that the league's trademark application concerned only "a football game played on a Sunday in February'' and thus wouldn't affect the game at Stanford or Cal, Drucker said, "Cal and Stanford still don't want anybody to have rights to a mark that references their game. The timing of the game is somewhat irrelevant.''

The thing I want to know though is how on earth they could enforce that trademark if it was granted. Take a commercial that says, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game". How can the NFL prove they were talking about a football game played on a Sunday in February as opposed to a basketball, hockey, or any other type of game played pretty much whenever. It isn't like they say, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game of football on a Sunday in February."Not a lawyer but it just seems like they couldn't defend the trademark in the majority of cases. They'd have to have very specific language in the use to be able to prove it was about the Super Bowl.

If the commercial aired after championship weekend and before the start of the Super Bowl, it would refer to the SB. For the other 50 weeks, it would not.(FWIW, the NFL would probably try and stretch it out from the start of the NFL playoffs, or the end of the NCAA BCS game. But the most realistic result would be the two week stretch named. Plus, if the NFL is actually suing a company that used the Big Game phrase during an advertisement, when the advertisement was played would go a long way towards deciding the case.)

Doesn't the NBA tend to have a nationally televised game or two early on Super Bowl Sunday? If so, what happens if some foreign superstar (similar to Dice K for the BoSox this year) enters the league somehow just in time to make his debut in the NBA that same Sunday. Wouldn't this be a Big Game especially for the country in which this player came from (example being China). There is a lot of things that could happen in the next 50 to 100 years. Giving trademark rights for such a generic sports term is dangerous ground.

 

[GregR_2]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

The article said:

Although the NFL's McCarthy said that the league's trademark application concerned only "a football game played on a Sunday in February'' and thus wouldn't affect the game at Stanford or Cal, Drucker said, "Cal and Stanford still don't want anybody to have rights to a mark that references their game. The timing of the game is somewhat irrelevant.''

The thing I want to know though is how on earth they could enforce that trademark if it was granted. Take a commercial that says, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game". How can the NFL prove they were talking about a football game played on a Sunday in February as opposed to a basketball, hockey, or any other type of game played pretty much whenever. It isn't like they say, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game of football on a Sunday in February."Not a lawyer but it just seems like they couldn't defend the trademark in the majority of cases. They'd have to have very specific language in the use to be able to prove it was about the Super Bowl.

If the commercial aired after championship weekend and before the start of the Super Bowl, it would refer to the SB. For the other 50 weeks, it would not.(FWIW, the NFL would probably try and stretch it out from the start of the NFL playoffs, or the end of the NCAA BCS game. But the most realistic result would be the two week stretch named. Plus, if the NFL is actually suing a company that used the Big Game phrase during an advertisement, when the advertisement was played would go a long way towards deciding the case.)

How can they prove that? If there is a big college basketball matchup on Saturday, how can you prove they were referring to a football game and not to the basketball game if nothing else said indicates the sport or the day of the event to a level it could only mean the Super Bowl?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

The bigger the cushion, the sweeter the pushin

That's what I said.

The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand

Or so I have read.

My baby fits me like a flesh tuxedo.

I love to sink her with my pink torpedo.

Big bottom

Big bottom

Talk about bum cakes,

My gal's got 'em.

Big bottom,

Drive me out of my mind.

How can I leave this behind?

I saw her on monday, twas my lucky bun day

You know what I mean.

I love her each weekday, each velvety cheekday

You know what I mean.

My love gun's loaded and she's in my sights

Big game's waiting there inside her tights

Big bottom

Big bottom

Talk about mud flaps

My gal's got 'em.

Big bottom

Drive me out of my mind.

How can I leave this behind?

 

[JaxBill]

I don't see it happening.

Big Game

Yeah, I was going to mention that the MegaMillions multi-state lottery game was once known as The Big Game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

The article said:

Although the NFL's McCarthy said that the league's trademark application concerned only "a football game played on a Sunday in February'' and thus wouldn't affect the game at Stanford or Cal, Drucker said, "Cal and Stanford still don't want anybody to have rights to a mark that references their game. The timing of the game is somewhat irrelevant.''

The thing I want to know though is how on earth they could enforce that trademark if it was granted. Take a commercial that says, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game". How can the NFL prove they were talking about a football game played on a Sunday in February as opposed to a basketball, hockey, or any other type of game played pretty much whenever. It isn't like they say, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game of football on a Sunday in February."Not a lawyer but it just seems like they couldn't defend the trademark in the majority of cases. They'd have to have very specific language in the use to be able to prove it was about the Super Bowl.

If the commercial aired after championship weekend and before the start of the Super Bowl, it would refer to the SB. For the other 50 weeks, it would not.(FWIW, the NFL would probably try and stretch it out from the start of the NFL playoffs, or the end of the NCAA BCS game. But the most realistic result would be the two week stretch named. Plus, if the NFL is actually suing a company that used the Big Game phrase during an advertisement, when the advertisement was played would go a long way towards deciding the case.)

How can they prove that? If there is a big college basketball matchup on Saturday, how can you prove they were referring to a football game and not to the basketball game if nothing else said indicates the sport or the day of the event to a level it could only mean the Super Bowl?

I think we're having different definitions of proof here. I'm not sure what the legal standard is, but I'm sure it's not "100% conclusive", and it's probably "by a preponderance of the evidence" (although this is just a guess). Do you really think it would be that hard to say that it's more likely than not that the Big Game refers to the game watched by 130,000,000 instead of the game watched by 4,000,000 people?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Lame. "Big game" only applies to football?Listening to radio promotions is always entertaining before the Super Bowl. "Come down to Whatever Bar & Grill and watch the BIG GAME this Sunday." Can't say Super Bowl.... The NFL has their ducks in a row but sometimes they need to give it a rest. This would be one of those times.

Big Game certainly doesn't only apply to football. But Big Game, when used the week before the Super Bowl, is clearly a reference to the Super Bowl.

Can the NFL only trademark "Big Game" for a week or two during a year? If not, then this is silly.

I'm pretty sure this is only directed at advertisers that use this in late January/early February. And yes, it would be ludicrous to think anything else could succeed.

The article said:

Although the NFL's McCarthy said that the league's trademark application concerned only "a football game played on a Sunday in February'' and thus wouldn't affect the game at Stanford or Cal, Drucker said, "Cal and Stanford still don't want anybody to have rights to a mark that references their game. The timing of the game is somewhat irrelevant.''

The thing I want to know though is how on earth they could enforce that trademark if it was granted. Take a commercial that says, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game". How can the NFL prove they were talking about a football game played on a Sunday in February as opposed to a basketball, hockey, or any other type of game played pretty much whenever. It isn't like they say, "Get your flat screen TV in time for the Big Game of football on a Sunday in February."Not a lawyer but it just seems like they couldn't defend the trademark in the majority of cases. They'd have to have very specific language in the use to be able to prove it was about the Super Bowl.

If the commercial aired after championship weekend and before the start of the Super Bowl, it would refer to the SB. For the other 50 weeks, it would not.(FWIW, the NFL would probably try and stretch it out from the start of the NFL playoffs, or the end of the NCAA BCS game. But the most realistic result would be the two week stretch named. Plus, if the NFL is actually suing a company that used the Big Game phrase during an advertisement, when the advertisement was played would go a long way towards deciding the case.)

Doesn't the NBA tend to have a nationally televised game or two early on Super Bowl Sunday? If so, what happens if some foreign superstar (similar to Dice K for the BoSox this year) enters the league somehow just in time to make his debut in the NBA that same Sunday. Wouldn't this be a Big Game especially for the country in which this player came from (example being China). There is a lot of things that could happen in the next 50 to 100 years. Giving trademark rights for such a generic sports term is dangerous ground.

If this were to happen, that would be a viable defense by that organization.

 

[Chase Stuart]

We'll now have to hear "The Championship in Feburary" or win a trip to "That Game in [Miami, Jacksonville, San Diego, etc.]"

This is pretty much the heart of the issue here. "We'll now have to hear" makes it sound like it's a bad thing. That's certainly a defensible position, that the NFL shouldn't have this large trademark power. But I think it's av much less defensible argument to suggest that businesses can't say "trip to the Super Bowl" but can say "trip to that big game in Miami."Do you disagree with that?

 

[CalBear]

The way trademark works is that a trademark holder must defend itself against incursions on the use of the trademark, or the trademark becomes generic and loses validity. ("Aspirin" is one example of an originally trademarked term that is now generic).

That's why McDonald's sues anyone who opens a restaurant with Mc in the name.

If the NFL really wants to protect the term "Big Game" as a trademark, it would need to serve cease-and-desist orders on anyone using it to describe potentially confusing events, such as a college football game. And they could not just during the two weeks leading up to the Super Bowl; either the use is infringing or it isn't.

I also completely fail to see what the NFL would get out of stopping electronics retailers from using the term to sell TVs.

 

[Righetti]

radio spots will just refer to it as "the game" if this happens and then the dude from 50's crew is gonna get pissed.. and you don't want to piss those dudes off.. they have guns

 

[kbreaker]

Yea this is getting pretty redonkulous. Can you seriously trademark something as vague as "Big Game"?

redonkulous

 

[GregR_2]

We'll now have to hear "The Championship in Feburary" or win a trip to "That Game in [Miami, Jacksonville, San Diego, etc.]"

This is pretty much the heart of the issue here. "We'll now have to hear" makes it sound like it's a bad thing. That's certainly a defensible position, that the NFL shouldn't have this large trademark power. But I think it's av much less defensible argument to suggest that businesses can't say "trip to the Super Bowl" but can say "trip to that big game in Miami."Do you disagree with that?

Well, it may be less defensible, but I still think it's defensible. I think they should have a right to protect the name of their product, but not to be able to control any general terms that can be used to refer to it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I also completely fail to see what the NFL would get out of stopping electronics retailers from using the term to sell TVs.

The NFL would get much more money out of the one electronics retailer that is allowed to use the term to sell TVs.

 

[GregR_2]

I also completely fail to see what the NFL would get out of stopping electronics retailers from using the term to sell TVs.

The NFL would get much more money out of the one electronics retailer that is allowed to use the term to sell TVs.

They only manage this if they remove the ability to use any language at all that refers to the game, as opposed to using the game's name. Which I don't think trademarks should protect.Kleenex shouldn't be able to stop everyone from using the term tissue paper just because it can be used to refer to their product too. That isn't the name of their product, it's a description of it.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

We'll now have to hear "The Championship in Feburary" or win a trip to "That Game in [Miami, Jacksonville, San Diego, etc.]"

This is pretty much the heart of the issue here. "We'll now have to hear" makes it sound like it's a bad thing. That's certainly a defensible position, that the NFL shouldn't have this large trademark power. But I think it's av much less defensible argument to suggest that businesses can't say "trip to the Super Bowl" but can say "trip to that big game in Miami."Do you disagree with that?

I am not a lawyer, nor do I know or understand the laws and legal precedents involved. That said, my gut reaction as a consumer is that the types of promotions we have been talking about are not likely to be confused with any official sponsorship arrangements the NFL may have made and that just the fact that a generic term like "big game" is understood to refer to the event known as the Super Bowl, doesn't imply sponsorship and thus doesn't infringe on their ability to license the trademark in other places. If you have purchased a trip and tickets to a game and you have the right to transfer those to others for commercial benefit, it seems reasonable that you should be able to describe the nature of the prize in your advertising. I can see not allowing them to use the truly trademarked name of "Super Bowl." But to extend protection of the mark to any generic reference to the event itself seems to be greatly overstepping the concept of a trademark. If the issue is with giving away the trip in the first place, then go to the root of the cause and take them to court for giving away the tickets. For cases like selling TVs and snacks and beer, just saying that you are able to have the merchandise for the game does not seem to imply any official sponsorship. It just says to me that you can have it in time for a particular event. So the short answer is that Yes I disagree with your statement. I can much more easily defend protection of the actual tradmarked term "Super Bowl" than I can stopping any generic reference to the underlying event that that mark refers to.Edit to add: If I have a contest giving away a car (Let's say it's a :Honda: Accord), do you think it is equally infringing on the Honda Accord trademarks to say "Win a Honda Accord" and "Win a mid-sized car"? One case uses the trademark, the other is a generic term describing the prize.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I also completely fail to see what the NFL would get out of stopping electronics retailers from using the term to sell TVs.

The NFL would get much more money out of the one electronics retailer that is allowed to use the term to sell TVs.

They only manage this if they remove the ability to use any language at all that refers to the game, as opposed to using the game's name. Which I don't think trademarks should protect.Kleenex shouldn't be able to stop everyone from using the term tissue paper just because it can be used to refer to their product too. That isn't the name of their product, it's a description of it.

That's what I was trying to get at, but much pithier.

 

[DrJ]

Nice, I think we have a need for more lawsuits in this country.

 

[GregR_2]

Stealing a comment from someone elsewhere.

If the NFL should be able to trademark a general term that's been in widespread use for so long like big game, then UEFA should be able to trademark "football".

 

[salmonstud]

I'm the Salmonstud & hold the copyright to that name & also TroutStud. If anyone around here starts calling themself SalmonStud....you will hear from my attorney.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

I'm the Salmonstud & hold the copyright to that name & also TroutStud. If anyone around here starts calling themself SalmonStud....you will hear from my attorney.

What if I refer to you as the "poster with the blue fish-shaped avatar"?

 

[GregR_2]

I'm the Salmonstud & hold the copyright to that name & also TroutStud. If anyone around here starts calling themself SalmonStud....you will hear from my attorney.

What if I refer to you as the "poster with the blue fish-shaped avatar"?

NFL | Salmonstud trademarks new termFri, 2 Mar 2007 10:21:44 -0800Nancy Gay, of the San Francisco Chronicle, reports Shark Pool user Salmonstud has filed paperwork to trademark the term, "poster with the blue fish-shaped avatar".

 

[Kleck]

I find it hard to believe there are so many people being this narrow minded.

The Super Bowl has become a giant advertising tool. Is it that absurd for the NFL to expect compensation when companies use the NFL's property to profit?

Yes, trademarking "big game" seems a bit silly, but people should be open minded enough to understand what's going on here. The NFL has a legitimate complaint. Does anyone have a better idea how they should deal with the situation?

 

[The Duff Man]

What a big waste of time. If they were successful then advertisers would just call it the "Super Game". Then the "Championship Game". Then "The Football Game Being Played This Sunday"

 

[snorlax]

I can see a point for huge promotions but not for small bars and things like that. I don't know exactly how the current rules are enforced.

 

[BLOX]

If they actually won the trademark, I could see a company still using it as a promotional tool. Having the NFL sue would be much more advertising for free and my be worth it to a company with deep advertising pockets.

 

[kevthegrad]

How gay. I tell you I blindly follow and support just about everything this league does, but "Big Game"? The game has a name...the Superbowl. Cut the crap.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This is absurd.

There's no way to copyright Roman Numerals , so guess what they'd use to refer to the SB if any of this stupidity gets legislated?

 

[tikitime]

I'm a trademark attorney by profession, and just to give you an idea, Cal and Stanford are not the only people that are potentially objecting to this trademark some of the others include:

Anheiser Busch

Taco Bell

Papa John's

KFC

Dell

Diageo (big liquor company)

Kellogg

Walmart

Clear Channel

Time Warner

Nestle

I'd say the likelihood of the NFL getting this brand name is virtually nil. Everyone of these corporate entities has a vested interest in not seeing this name go forward, and almost all have been likely using since before it was ever claimed by the NFL. Accordingly, the likelihood that the NFL would be able to overcome any of these challenges is not good.

And CalBear is right, the two week claimed enforcement period is absurd. The NFL guy may claim that is the impetus here, but the NFL guy is lying. If the NFL fails to properly enforce this mark against all users during the entire year, it would defeat the purpose of having a trademark in the first place. My guess is when you look at all the people that have objected, many of which are long standing NFL advertisers, that this goes away quietly in the night.

Isn't this an FFA thread?

 

[kevthegrad]

What did the XFL call their Superbowl? "The Game at the End of It All"? Something equally as gay.

The league should see this overwhelming poor reaction by it's core fans and give it's head a shake.

 

[Darth Cheney]

What the hell is wrong with the NFL? If this went through.... I would just say...... " Get your 50 inch television in time to have a Super weekend".... Let's see them #### with that....

 

[This_Guy]

What did James Worthy ever do to them?