ForwardProgress

Members
  • Content Count

    319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ForwardProgress

  1. Considering how many responses and how much heated debate my Nike making adidas triple-striped socks for the Patriots road uniforms post got, I think I'm going to make a weekly post here in the forum dedicated to one of my many "tin foil hat" sports uniform and / or logo conspiracy theories. Today's theory is about how neither the Pittsburgh Steelers nor the NFL own any copyright or trademark rights in regards to the Steelers' logo. Instead of just making "outrageous" claims like with the Patriots' three-stripe socks thread and how they are at least a signature adidas design element if not a registered trademark that Nike has continued to manufacture, today I am backing everything up with evidence. Now, I know what you're thinking: how can the Steelers and / or the NFL not own the Steelers' logo when they have been using that logo and selling merchandise with that logo on it since the 60's? Well it all comes down to the official origin story of the logo that I found on steelers.com: So that's the story, straight from the horse's mouth. So my theory, that neither the Steelers nor the NFL own the rights to the Steelers logo, has some solid evidence to back it up because it seems like without a shadow of a doubt that the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) still owns the logo even after the letters "ers" were added to it and other extremely minor adjustments were made. It is my theory that these changes weren't dramatic enough to allow the Steelers or NFL to copyright or trademark the logo for themselves. This is where people chime in with the "percentage different" defense, where an "original" logo design only has to be 10%, 20%, 30% (the percentage is always different) different than the one it is based on to be considered a new logo design that can be registered as a trademark. According to everything I've read about this, this is a huge myth. So the Steelers' minor aesthetic adjustments to the Steelmark are absolutely not enough for them to be able to trademark the logo for themselves. So it makes me very curious what kind of royalties arrangement the NFL and the Steelers have with AISI when it comes to everything the NFL and Steelers make money off of via use of the logo. I would guess it covers TV revenue, merchandising, appearances in video games and other media... the sky's the limit! Makes you wonder how much of a percentage of their income AISI makes off the Steelers' use of the Steelmark as their logo. Hmmmm... In case you don't believe everything you've read so far, take a look at the logo below: That is the logo of Club Deportivo Huachipato, a Chilean soccer team. Obviously if the Steelers really owned their logo, they'd sue the crap out of these guys to stop them from using it. But this hasn't happened. Why? Because the Steelers don't own their own logo and AISI does! AISI is cool with this Chilean team using the Steelmark because of the following info taken from Wikipedia: Therefore the inclusion of the Steelmark (notice I didn't say Steelers' logo?) helps promote the steel industry, the very same reason why the creators of the logo let the Steelers put it on their helmets in the first place back in 1962. So gentlemen, tell me this: have I proven this theory to be true, or is it still just a "crazy" conspiracy? Or was all this already common knowledge and I just wasted my time trying to prove something that everybody already knew?
  2. How about the Minnesota Missed-Game-Winning-Field-Goals-In-The-Playoffs? I heard they were a team in 2016 and 1999. Blow it out your Colon.
  3. St. Louis, King of France - crusader: St. Michael the Archangel is often depicted as wearing some form of armor and brandishing a sword. Nice, thanks for this. Another one is St. George who I am very well aware of who is most famous for slaying a dragon, so I'm not sure why I didn't think of him in addition to Joan of Arc:
  4. This doesn't make any sense. Stanford's tree logo is from the school seal and from the seal of the city. The tree is literally El Palo Alto. http://www.gostanford.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=208445366 "Cardinal" is strictly from the school color, not the tree. Haha. Exactly. "Cardinal" has nothing to do with the tree, it strictly refers to the school color and the tree comes from the school seal. Where do you live that "Cardinal" being a type of tree is common knowledge? I find it hard to believe that you've heard that story more than once from various educated persons. And I really hope you didn't hear TV commentators make this claim multiple times over the 20+ years you've been watching football because it makes zero sense and is completely wrong.
  5. Wait, what? Snoopy is only there when they have MetLife sponsoring a giveaway or one of their player of the month awards. The only mascot that they've had was Dandy. But they killed him because mascots are awesome and that team hates fun. Actually, I think it's because furry peanuts taste wierd.The Yankees got rid of Dandy because a sequence of bad things happened shortly after he debuted, by far the worst being the death of catcher Thurman Munson in a plane crash. As you can see in the pic Dandy's mustache was modeled after Munson's so obviously the team didn't want a reminder of their deceased teammate dancing around and acting like a goofball. Plus just look at that thing... does that say "Evil Empire" to you?
  6. He was more of a city-wide entertainer for crowds for all San Diego teams and events. Not only did he appear at Chargers and Padres games but also at Clippers games before they moved to LA! So I don't think he was ever considered the official mascot of any team. He was more like the unofficial mascot of the city of San Diego. Maybe the blue shape in the logo represents a body of water? Or just water in general?
  7. The Saints' costumed canine mascot that you've referenced - "Gumbo" - is a depiction of a Saint Bernard. Auburn University's official mascot is "Aubie the Tiger". A live golden eagle - Nova, dubbed "War Eagle VII" - is the living embodiment of Auburn's battle cry, "War Eagle!" Now that you mention it, a Saint Bernard dog has more of a connection to the Saints than a guy in knight's armor holding a shield (Sir Saint). The only saint I can think of that fought in battles wearing armor was Joan of Arc and she was a chick! Now about Auburn: if your mascot is a Tiger, why have a battle cry called "War Eagle"? And then make it even more confusing by having an actual living eagle fly over the football stadium where your team the *TIGERS* plays its games. HUH?!?!
  8. The Hartford Whalers mascot, Pucky the Whale, was an unusual choice for a mascot because whalers are hunters of whales, so why would you want a mascot that your team nickname hunts down and kills? Yeah, a whale is related to the nickname whalers, but it is the victim of your identity. That's like a team named the Cats having a mouse for a mascot! As part of the rebrand in 1979 when the Whalers jumped from the WHA to the NHL, graphic designer Peter Good decided to stay away from harpoon imagery that the team had previously used because he thought it was too morbid and the idea of killing your own mascot was ludicrous. So he pretty much transformed the nickname "Whalers" from meaning hunters of whales to being pro-whale, with the blue whale tail featured prominently in the logo he designed for them. Interestingly enough, the Whalers logo we all know and love so well was actually designed *after* another logo of his was already adopted by the team as it's official logo. The first one looked like an upside down version of the old Mariner's trident logo, with the top of a W acting as the three prongs. Obviously this was harpoon imagery and Good was trying to stay away from that, but whalers front office liked this logo enough to actually claim it as their official logo for several weeks or so. However, Good decided to go back to the drawing board though because when he first showed the team the logo they said they loved how there was an "H" for Hartford inside the W trident. Good was never told to incorporate an H before he did the initial sketches, but now that he knew that's what they wanted he decided to keep making sketches even after one of his logos was already approved for use and accepted as the official logo of the team! Thankfully the front office let him tinker around a bit amore, and the famous Hartford Whalers logo incorporating a whale tail, W, and H was born.
  9. Are you sure you're not talking about New England Adidas? They are only known as New England Adidas when they are wearing their away uniforms.
  10. How about the Minnesota Missed-Game-Winning-Field-Goals-In-The-Playoffs? I heard they were a team in 2016 and 1999.
  11. All my sources say the Cardinal nickname refers to the shade of red that Stanford's teams wear, I have never heard or seen any reference that claims "Cardinal" refers to a type of tree. Do you have a source for this info?
  12. I even like when human mascots have bodies... Like Michigan State or Oklahoma State.I don't want to sound like a jerk and I mean absolutely no offense by this, but why wouldn't human mascots have bodies? Do you mean you like it when teams use human *heads* as logos but the only representation of them having bodies is the mascot costume?
  13. Even better when it's not even an animal, but an inanimate object like a bail of hay The best example of this is probably the Stanford Tree. I mean, it's a tree with googly eyes, a mouth, and human legs. I'm assuming they got the idea from the school seal which has a big tree right smack dab in the middle of it, but why not use a cardinal bird when your nickname is "Cardinal" and your primary color is red? Is it just too obvious of an idea?
  14. Yeah I'm leaning towards unlicensed too, mainly because they are holding beers and even in the late 70's and early 80's a school wouldn't want to promote drinking on officially licensed products, but also because no "TM" or "circle R" icon appears anywhere near the designs, meaning the images are not being used as a trademark and aren't registered as a trademark. As we all know colleges protect the hell out of their logos and intellectual property; whenever you buy licensed gear from an NCAA school you will always find a little "TM" or "circle R" icon right next to the logo and team name, usually in the bottom right corner or wherever the designer thought it looked best next to the logo or wordmark.
  15. Is there a separate thread in this forum dedicated to friendly looking mascots in logos and on merchandise? I think it would be cool to gather images of them together in one place. I would guess most of them would be vintage, because most newer logos tend to have an angry or aggressive looking image of their mascot in them, and yet the mascot suit itself tends to be goofy and friendly looking. That's a major juxtaposition right there. On one hand you want your team to look tough, but on the other hand you want to market to kids and make money off their parents. I never realized there was such a dual aspect to sports team marketing before.
  16. Back in 2003 or 2004 I found a t-shirt with the Iowa Hawkeyes mascot holding a mug of beer: In 2006 I sold it on eBay for $40 which was a lot for a t-shirt back then. The other day while browsing around on Pinterest I found an extremely similar t-shirt, and here is the cropped and zoomed-in graphic: Obviously the same artist or t-shirt company made both of these, due to the same font used, the same reclining pose of the mascots, and almost the identical foam on the mugs of beer. My theory about these shirts is a local t-shirt company in Iowa decided to make some easy cash by selling them outside the football stadiums of these two teams, because obviously a university would never approve of and then officially license an image of its mascot holding a beer. HOWEVER, the late 70's and early 80's, the era these shirts are from, were different times. The legal drinking age back then was 18, and drinking was considered an essential part of college life, so much so that the college I went to rented a Coors truck for the day back in 1979 and handed out free beers to students on the green! Something like that would NEVER happen now a days, so if a college would sanction and pay for free beer being handed out to students, who says they couldn't license an image of their mascot holding a beer? It's totally possible. Unlikely, but possible. I just thought it was cool how these two shirts, albeit representing two different schools, obviously used the same template. It makes me very curious if the artist or company that made these also made them for other schools, or possibly pro teams. Has anyone else ever seen these shirts or ones like them before?
  17. Just off the top of my head: Iowa State Cyclones: mascot is a cardinal bird New Orleans Saints: dog Cleveland Browns: an elf, then a dog Tennessee Titans: raccoon Kansas City Chiefs: wolf Auburn Tigers: war eagle Phoenix Suns: gorilla Alabama Crimson Tide: elephant Oakland Athletics: elephant Detroit Pistons: had a flaming horse head for a while but I don't know if you could call that a mascot And probably the most famous one of all: Philadelphia Phillies: The Philly Fanatic (has it ever been explained what kind of creature he is?) I'm sure there are plenty more. Which ones am I missing?
  18. Except Nike, Puma, Converse, and Reebok before adidas owned them. Hell, Reebok still doesn't use them and adidas owns the brand! Brand confusion is a bad thing. For everyone. Why? I'm having too much fun!
  19. Whoops. Try again, boss. http://www.eastbay.com/product/model:207101/sku:5130121/adidas-team-speed-traxion-crew-socks/black/red/?cm= How long did it take for you to find those, boss? Seriously, I want to know, boss. Be honest, boss. How long did you scour the internet just to prove me wrong, boss? Because that is the first time I have ever seen the three stripes be different colors, and those socks look like a very new product, "new" as in first appeared in 2015 or 2016, boss. Show me some adidas branded products with three stripes that aren't the same color from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, 00's. Good luck because I doubt they exist, boss.
  20. Like I'm going to waste my time and do "real academic research" just to settle an internet debate? If this was my Masters Thesis, yeah, I would do that, but honestly I have better things to do. Anyway I already admitted that adidas doesn't own three horizontally parallel stripes of equal thickness on athletic socks, sports uniforms, or athletic apparel. But what no one else has explained is why the big name sports clothing companies have NEVER made and sold to the public socks with three stripes on them. If you can show me pictures of socks with three stripes on them that were made by Nike, Puma, Converse, or Reebok (before adidas bought them) that were sold in stores to the public, than I rest my case. (K-Mart, Sears, and department store brands don't count). And those Sabres socks: don't two sets of three stripes basically make them socks with six stripes and not three, basically making them not relevant to the subject we are discussing?
  21. adidas manufactured the boots for Hitler's army during World War II. False.. Adidas DID NOT EXIST until 1949 (after the war and Hitler's death).. Perhaps you're referring to Gebrüder Dassler Schuhfabrik, the company owned by the Dassler brothers, Adolf and Rudolf.. It remained as such until 1947, when the brothers split up and Rudolf Dassler started Puma, while Adolf "Adi" DASsler created Adidas, (formally registered in August of 1949).. They never registered any trademarks until 1954.. Not that your incorrect details make your entire argument wrong, it certainly doesn't help.. Also, as several people have pointed out, the WAY the stripes are applied has a lot to do with it (such as down the arm as Adidas has done for decades, vs a sleeve cuff).. Three "rings" around a sock, used as a decorative element, aren't automatically Adidas's trademark "three stripes".. Especially when used as a traditional design element.Additionally, the stripes are NOT around the top of the socks like Adidas's signature soccer socks.. The patriots stripes are in the middle of the socks (or "mid-shin" to clarify), so again, they are applied in a manner not confused with Adidas's existing style and branding.. So, so I think Adidas may have intentionally slipped a reference to their brand into the patriots uniform in the form of a general design element? Sure, that truly seems very likely.. But do I think they have any real grounds to make it an issue? No, not in this particular situation. I think Adidas may very well have their chuckles at how they put one over on Nike and how Nike is being forced to give Adidas free marketing and advertisement by manufacturing the socks, but I also think Nike gets the last laugh with all the money they're making from the NFL contract, so it's a wash at best for Adidas. You make a lot of solid points and you are actually doing research. Well said and good work. It seems like you are actually on my side WavePunter, so I am sorry if the following sounds rude, but what I meant by saying adidas manufactured the boots for Hitler's army during World War II is that the same *PEOPLE* who started adidas, and in essence the company that evolved into adidas, were the ones to manufacture the boots. I have read books on this subject, I know all about how the brothers split a town in half with an adidas factory on one side and a Puma factory on the other. It's just a lot simpler to say adidas made the boots for Hitler's army. It's the watered down, attention-getting version of what happened because most people don't have the attention span for the full story. And quite frankly Gebrüder Dassler Schuhfabrik is too much of a mouthful and too hard to pronounce LOL!!!
  22. No, I'm saying each parallel you're trying to draw is sillier than the last. Up to and including this one. Three simple stripes, out of context, is too generic to be "owned" by Adidas as you suggest. I didn't take anything out of context. All my three stripe arguments were within the realms of athletic apparel. I never suggested adidas owned three stripes on every product they could possibly appear on. Even if it did come across that I was claiming adidas owned three horizontally parallel stripes of equal thickness in all applications, WavePunter did the grunt work and found out that the adidas three stripe trademark only applies to *VERTICALLY* placed stripes, like how they place them on jerseys, shorts, and pants (think early 80's tracksuits). So adidas doesn't own three horizontally parallel stripes of equal thickness after all, but that still doesn't explain why all the big name athletic apparel companies have never manufactured and sold to the public socks with three stripes. I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on this fact. (K-Mart, Sears, etc don't count).
  23. I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand the point you're trying to make.I just find the arguments unpersuasive. Long, but unpersuasive. So if you were a diehard Ford fan and hated Chevy but were forced to have a Chevy bow tie bumper sticker on the back of your Mustang, you'd be cool with that? Yes. I probably wouldn't even notice. Just because YOU don't notice doesn't mean it's not there and other people won't notice. Also, even if people don't notice consciously, their subconscious will still notice. That's how subliminal advertising works. So I would even go so far as to say that the three stripes on the Patriots' road socks are a subliminal advertisement for adidas on a Nike manufactured uniform. And apparently Nike is cool with that. How else do you explain their continued existence three to four years after Nike started making the uniform. The three stripes are basically a vestigial leftover from when the Pats' current uniform set was first designed and debuted by adidas in the year 2000. And Nike hasn't done a damn thing about it. You sure as hell know they tried though. Do the three stripes remain because like most of you they consider three stripes on a sock to be just three stripes on a sock and not a symbol of adidas? I highly doubt that. How else can you explain the fact that Nike, Puma, Converse, and Reebok before adidas owned them NEVER manufactured and sold athletic socks to the public with three stripes on them? (Prove me wrong, I dare you.) Because adidas, their competitor, markets itself as "The Brand With The Three Stripes". That is their official slogan and can not be disputed. It is out of respect for the competitor and to avoid brand confusion and a possible lawsuit, that's why the big name brands don't sell triple striped socks. Yeah, like you guys say, they may be able to do it legally and get away with it because, according to you guys, three stripes on a sock is just a generic design element. So if the big brands could do it and get away with it legally, why don't they?
  24. I don't think there's anyone here who doesn't understand the point you're trying to make. I just find the arguments unpersuasive. Long, but unpersuasive. So if you were a diehard Ford fan and hated Chevy but were forced to have a Chevy bow tie bumper sticker on the back of your Mustang, you'd be cool with that?
  25. It's not just socks, it's about one clothing company being forced to manufacture the registered trademark of a competitor and include it on the uniforms of its most high profile team. Regardless of that, try wearing the same shoes for three weeks straight with no socks, you'll appreciate socks a whole lot more after that, trust me.