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

[CalBear]

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.

The NFL doesn't have right to money from that TV any more than Jerry Seinfeld or Carrie Underwood do.

 

[Rooster]

Explain to me why Wendy's can have a commercial comparing their burger to the Whopper which is a trademark of Burger King, but Circuit City can't use the Super Bowl trademarked name without prior permission. Both are uses of another person's trademark for advertising purposes and the first is potentially more damaging to the trademark holder than the latter.

I understand the NFL's gripe if the XFL called their championship the Super Bowl or if that Cal/Stanford game was named the "California Super Bowl" or the like, it causes confusion about what the real Super Bowl is but a retailer saying "Get your TV in time for the Super Bowl" doesn't confuse the brand at all.

 

[grind]

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.

The NFL doesn't have right to money from that TV any more than Jerry Seinfeld or Carrie Underwood do.

That TV manufacture pays the NFL directly for the ability to use the word Super Bowl in their advertising campaign. This in itself seems right as the Super Bowl is part of the NFL. That said, if the NFL allowed every TV manufacture to use the term Super Bowl, the market would be dilluted and they wouldn't be able to charge as much for the rights. If that TV manufacture pays for the NFL for the rights to use "Super Bowl" in its advertising campaign, but finds out over time that other manufacurers are getting the same marketing benefit by using a generic term such as "Big Game, they will eventually stop paying the NFL to use "Super Bowl". That said, the NFL eventually loses money.I understand the whole process, but think the NFL is pushing too far. Fact is, the big game is a generic term. If the NFL succeeds, which I'm 100% sure they won't, it would just move on to "the football game this Sunday". This thread alone as point out to 100 plus different ways to market the game. In reality, the NFL is going to have to spend a ton of money each and every year attempting to get trade marks on 1000's of different ways to say "Super Bowl" without saying the words. Seems like the NFL lawyers would already know this. I see it as a no win situation for the NFL. Just the fact that the Super Bowl is so popular and so well known, you can advertise it using a wide array of words where people will know what is being referenced. The NFL created this monster. They need to just live with it.

 

[grind]

In reality, an advertiser can simply say "the game this Sunday" the week of the Super Bowl. Due to the popularity of the Super Bowl, 99.9% of the people will know what game is being reference. The NFL wouldn't have a leg to stand on, if they tried to claim this phrase as a trademark. The NCAA and NBA both have games on the same day as the Super Bowl. Seems like the NFL would have a very hard time saying game as used above automatically doesn't reference any other professional sporting event.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

This really is ridiculous. As an aside, I thought Stanford/Cal would have trademark rights over the NFL, anyway. The law as I understood it was that if you can prove the name was in use before the NFL used it, it didn't matter whether you actually sought trademark protection.

 

[AB in DC]

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.

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.

x2

 

[AB in DC]

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.

No, they don't. You can trademark a name, but not a descriptive term.They have intellectual property rights to "Super Bowl" and I have no problem with them defending that trademark. But they have no rights to a description of a "big game" and it's utterly absurd to say that they do.

 

[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.

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

I'm the Salmonstud....you can call yourself the poster with the blue-shaped avatar if you wish, I don't mind.

 

[laxiepoo]

Torry Holt should trademark it.

That's what I thought when I read the thread title. But maybe they want the rights to use Big Game Torry Holt on the NFL Network whenever he's ready to retire. =)

 

[tikitime]

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.

No, they don't. You can trademark a name, but not a descriptive term.They have intellectual property rights to "Super Bowl" and I have no problem with them defending that trademark. But they have no rights to a description of a "big game" and it's utterly absurd to say that they do.

Here's what I don't get, as I just had this convo with my boss, another IP attorney. If I put an ad stating, come to our store and win free Super Bowl tickets, that's not allowed (according to the NFL). What if I put an ad that said, "Come buy two extra tickets to the Super Bowl", I fail to see why that is unlawful, nor do I see it as a problem for a bar to advertise, "Come to our bar to watch the Super Bowl", it seems to me like these are both purely informational. Similar to "Come to my store to buy Coke". I don't get it frankly, and this is my job. The NFL is a giant and many people just cower in fear, but I'd love to see this issue litigated.

 

[TheLastDispatch]

 

[TheLastDispatch]

Here's what I don't get, as I just had this convo with my boss, another IP attorney. If I put an ad stating, come to our store and win free Super Bowl tickets, that's not allowed (according to the NFL). What if I put an ad that said, "Come buy two extra tickets to the Super Bowl", I fail to see why that is unlawful, nor do I see it as a problem for a bar to advertise, "Come to our bar to watch the Super Bowl", it seems to me like these are both purely informational. Similar to "Come to my store to buy Coke". I don't get it frankly, and this is my job. The NFL is a giant and many people just cower in fear, but I'd love to see this issue litigated.

Because that store or bar stands to make money off of something the NFL is doing, namely the super bowl. It's not rational, but that's how they see it.

 

[stevegamer]

What I would love to see from this is for the NFL to get completely nailed. They have played the legal game before and gotten away with wrist slaps - see the USFL suit where the NFL committed violations, but the violations were found to be worth $1 each.

I liken them at this point to McScum - (I mean McD#####s) when you start overstepping reasonable bounds, you need your head handed to you. Hopefully they will try this, and will either get ripped a new one by every manufacturer that uses "Big" or "Game" or "The". Maybe McDonald's can fight the NFL for "Big" - actually, Big Mac comes to mind.

 

[AB in DC]

Round one victory goes to common sense.

[thx to PFT for the link]

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

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

Respectully, I don't think you understand the spirit of trademark laws. Trademark laws serve to protect:-consumers from confusing marketing by wannabe's-businesses who invest a lot in a particular brand (Superbowl, Gillette Fusion, Tide, etc.) and don't want free riders to dilute the value.Random sports bars advertising for "the big game" are in no way confusing consumers, nor are they diluting any of NFL's brands. They are simply trying to accurately convey to potential customers what they will be showing at their bar.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

Explain to me why Wendy's can have a commercial comparing their burger to the Whopper which is a trademark of Burger King, but Circuit City can't use the Super Bowl trademarked name without prior permission. Both are uses of another person's trademark for advertising purposes and the first is potentially more damaging to the trademark holder than the latter. I understand the NFL's gripe if the XFL called their championship the Super Bowl or if that Cal/Stanford game was named the "California Super Bowl" or the like, it causes confusion about what the real Super Bowl is but a retailer saying "Get your TV in time for the Super Bowl" doesn't confuse the brand at all.

My guess is that advertising "Watch the Superbowl at Joe's Beer Hut" may imply that Joe is in some way officially affiliated with the NFL, which they are not. Seems like a stretch but I guess it's plausible.Re: Coke, there may be a retail exception by which a vendor is allowed to list the products they carry. Or Coke may expressly allow retailers to use their trademark.