Group Effort To Discourage High Schools From Using Trademarked Logos?

[Gothamite]

25 minutes ago, BrandMooreArt said:

as far as i know, this is still an option for teams. i dont know all the specifics of this, but there are certainly teams that encourage high schools to use their logos (because if you can't hook kids as future players with the decline of youth football participation, they'll hook them as future fans by establishing an early connection to their brands). but i also know of a couple of teams that do send out C&D letters. one that always stuck with me was the NY Giants suing a model because she had pictures of herself on her site (self promotion) wearing an officially licensed Giants jersey (with visible NYG logo under the collar)

 

That seems to me to be a totally unrelated issue.  I can see where a team would take issue with that, even if they allow youth teams and schools to wear them. 

[mark_lavis]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's interesting, and it indicates that the policy may have indeed changed, since the "no alterations" policy was perfectly in line with the NFL's request. 

 

Did your school sell merchandise?  If they ran afoul of the other condition, it's possible that the NFL would send a C&D without indicating any change to the general policy. 

 

If you look at the image I posted earlier, I saw those at the local Walgreens that's just a few blocks from school being sold on behalf of the school. Clearly the one on the left would be mistaken for a New England Patriots sweater, even within our town unless you're on that school's campus, and I remember seeing similar stuff being sold at Walmart and Albertsons the past few years as well. This is why the whole "schools aren't making a profit off of NFL logos" argument is a bit bull a lot of the time. 

 

Granted, at smaller schools in rural towns, it's less of an issue. But I've seen on numerous occasions over the past few years of large high schools that have attendance over 2k students stocking the local grocery store with a half dozen plus pieces of merchandise made by booster clubs; some of which skirt that line pretty thin of it clearly representing the school. Though, since this was Walgreens, the NFHS might have allowed this under their licensing program which is a big red flag because the program is meant to make schools a profit using their verified original branding. 

 

I mean, going back to the ORIGINAL point of this topic, what I've been advocating for his basically the same thing the NFHS is although their looking at the issue from a purely business perspective rather than a business and moral perspective. Also, if I remember correctly, when I talked with the head of the program a year and a half ago, the NFHS isn't that much of a watchdog when it comes to schools who are committing trademark infringement unless they voluntarily pay to become part of the licensing program. It's a bit sad too because some vendors out there are duping schools into using trademarked logos and saying they're fine; making the schools pay money for a rebrand only to have to pay for another a few years later when the trademark owner finally catches wind of it.

 

I know a case where a local school on the smallish size (less than 750ish) went through a whole rebranding of their athletic program that was long over due only to have to scrap it and come up with something else less than two years later because they actually using the trademarked logo for a professional ice hockey team in the UK. 

 

[Gothamite]

Yes, it's true that some vendors are duping schools. But that's why the OP's original point is so interesting - a coordinated effort to educate schools and thereby discourage theft.  

[Sykotyk]

23 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

That's interesting, and it indicates that the policy may have indeed changed, since the "no alterations" policy was perfectly in line with the NFL's request. 

 

Did your school sell merchandise?  If they ran afoul of the other condition, it's possible that the NFL would send a C&D without indicating any change to the general policy. 

Based on his post, they did sell merchandise exactly like the New England Patriots themselves might sell. Without a name or anything on the sweater. Which is exactly what I was arguing about. They attempted to sell just the NE Patriots logo as their own rather than the sweater to the right that had the logo and the school name. Which would a NE Patriots fan wouldn't purchase.

 

Hence the issue.

[Sykotyk]

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

You sir (I assume)...that is all. I like your straw man at the end. Very inventive. I mean, I've been talking about trademarked logos being used by high schools the whole time but very Trump of you to try and make a 180 degree pivot at the last second in your fading breath to try and undermine my argument with a cold to the face. Then again, you do appear to come from, or at least support in some manner, a minor league hockey background where the co-owner was so lazy at coming up with a team brand, he just copy and pasted his company's brand onto the hockey team. I have nothing against that. He owns both the fireworks company and hockey team so he can do whatever the hell he wants with that logo.

 

 

It wasn't lazy. It was a business decision on his part. He runs the Ice Zone in Boardman and started the junior team as a next step up from just the myriad of youth hockey teams and clinics the rink handles. When the Youngstown SteelHounds started at the new Chevy Centre (now the Covelli Centre), he changed their name to the Mahoning Valley Phantoms. When the SteelHounds went under in the CHL (huge mistake having your closest competition be in suburban Memphis), he moved the team to the USHL and put them team in the Covelli Centre.

 

As for the name, the Phantoms Fireworks brand is ubiquitous in this area. Bruce Zoldan has championed ice hockey in this area for a long time. It's still a 'niche' sport as the Mahoning Valley doesn't have the exposure that the Pittsburgh market does for non-major league hockey.

 

If it weren't for him, there probably wouldn't be any form of organized Junior or better hockey in the direct area. Besides, I actually like the Phantoms name. To me the Phantoms name is as much Youngstown as the Steelers name is indicative of Pittsburgh.

 

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

That's what Sports Authority did wrong. I'll go tell them they're free to use Target's logo. I mean, like you said, Target should find no issue with that. Maybe that'll get them out of bankruptcy. 

 

Considering both market themselves as department stores, regardless of which approach they took, their markets interfere with eachother.

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

No duh. Who would wear a brown and yellow Carolina Panthers jersey. A blind person? Nawh, even they'd be able to smell the odor of poor fashion choice. I mean did you see those vintage Denver Broncos uniforms a couple of years ago. Yuck. 

 

Never questioned the fashion aspects, just the concept.

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

"Erie Coca-Cola Bottling, located in Erie, Pa., is a regional plant that bottles and distributes numerous Coca-Cola brand beverages, including Coca-Cola, Dr. Pepper, Minute-Maid, Sprite, Fresca, Frutopia, Mello Yello, Nestea and Powerade. The company manufactures most of its finished products from syrups and concentrates that it buys from The Coca-Cola Company and other licensors. It is a member of Coca-Cola Enterprises, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Coca-Cola Company."

 

So yeah, Cola-Cola Company of Atlanta and Coca-Cola Corporation of Erie are the same company actually so theoretically a person could be buying Coca-Cola from the Erie and Atlanta companies at the same time. Wow, trippy...

 

Actually, Coca-Cola Corporation of Erie is a fictitious company I just made up. I was giving the implication of a second company using the same or similar name and trying to sell similar products because the name or items sold would confuse the customer.

 

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

I can sense you are a proponent for shrinking the copyright duration. However, I don't see many high schools using logos that were created before 1923. It sucks, I know, but blame voters in the 1990s for voting for politicians who were successfully lobbied by Disney in the late 90s and thus drastically extended the copyright duration for published works.

 

I'm for the protection of trademark (i.e., the name and identifying logo in and of itself). Copyright, no. I think infinity and a day is a little egregious. Especially since it's basically Walt Disney backing the continued extension of copyright. 25 years from date of creation for copyright is more than enough. Regardless who owns it. But, copyright isn't trademark. Trademark should be enforced for as long as the trademark is used by the party.

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

It's also because the owner of the New York Yankees football team, Dan Topping, owned the Yankees football team (1946-49 fyi) at the same time he owned the Yankees baseball team from 1945-64. 

 

There was also the St. Louis Cardinals and St. Louis Cardinals. The Yankees was just a random example. There was others. Didn't realize the SECOND New York Yankees football team was owned by the New York Yankees baseball team.

 

But, in your exuberance, you failed to realize there was an NFL team named the New York Yankees in the 20s that WASN'T owned by the New York Yankees.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Yankees_%28NFL%29

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

Personally, I'm glad we've evolved since the 1930s. I imagine a lot of people would be mad if we advocated for the good ol' days of law and order like you're suggesting. 

 

 

To quote Allen Iverson: For who? For what?

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

Darn, and I was thinking about trademarking the color combination red, white, and blue. How stupid am I...

I get it, there are STUPID trademarks all the time (I'm looking at you, Amazon) but you are really starting to grasp at straws now trying to make my argument seem like a slippery slope. 

 

I think you're talking about Amazon's 1-click patent. Not a trademark.

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

Right, that's because Pittsburgh is a common word...

 

Once again, what does this have to do with high schools using trademarked logos...

 

 

Okay smart guy, tell me. I just walked into my local Walgreens. Why would I buy the sweater on the left?

 

 

 

Then they're clearly infringing their logo. How is that not obvious to you that that is not what I was arguing? Where on the shirt is their any identification of the high school's name or insignia?

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

Got to love that defeatist attitude. A real inspiration for the young designers out there whose trying to make a living doing something they love.

 

I'm not a designer. Nor do I really care (surprise!). For me to support the government acting as 'protection' for someone, I have to feel there is harm to someone.

 

Otherwise, it's just a bully tactic.

 

On 5/8/2016 at 7:50 AM, mark_lavis said:

 

Oh the poetry. You must be a scholar my friend. Anyways, have a nice day Donald. 

 

And we end with an insult. I thought we were being civil.

[mark_lavis]

15 hours ago, Gothamite said:

Yes, it's true that some vendors are duping schools. But that's why the OP's original point is so interesting - a coordinated effort to educate schools and thereby discourage theft.  

 As the OP, thank you. I don't expect every single high school across the country to be masters at athletic branding. I just think it's a win-win for everyone involved. The schools become educated about opportunities that could keep some of the less-supported teams afloat as schools are focusing their shrinking funds elsewhere that's more important. The students and local community get to cultivate a better connection with the school through original branding. Designers and teams get help trying to protect their original work in the vast ocean that is the Internet and the United States. More opportunities for small-time designers, even members of the student body, to see the ideas flourish and have a home. So on and so on... 

[mark_lavis]

52 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Based on his post, they did sell merchandise exactly like the New England Patriots themselves might sell. Without a name or anything on the sweater. Which is exactly what I was arguing about. They attempted to sell just the NE Patriots logo as their own rather than the sweater to the right that had the logo and the school name. Which would a NE Patriots fan wouldn't purchase.

 

Hence the issue.

 

It's amazing how advocating that if high schools stopped using trademarked logos, even if its from an NFL team with permission, situations like this wouldn't happen. It's nice though that you've finally flip-flopped though on this debate. Welcome, brother. 

[mark_lavis]

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

It wasn't lazy. It was a business decision on his part. He runs the Ice Zone in Boardman and started the junior team as a next step up from just the myriad of youth hockey teams and clinics the rink handles. When the Youngstown SteelHounds started at the new Chevy Centre (now the Covelli Centre), he changed their name to the Mahoning Valley Phantoms. When the SteelHounds went under in the CHL (huge mistake having your closest competition be in suburban Memphis), he moved the team to the USHL and put them team in the Covelli Centre.

 

As for the name, the Phantoms Fireworks brand is ubiquitous in this area. Bruce Zoldan has championed ice hockey in this area for a long time. It's still a 'niche' sport as the Mahoning Valley doesn't have the exposure that the Pittsburgh market does for non-major league hockey.

 

If it weren't for him, there probably wouldn't be any form of organized Junior or better hockey in the direct area. Besides, I actually like the Phantoms name. To me the Phantoms name is as much Youngstown as the Steelers name is indicative of Pittsburgh.

 

It's one thing to connect a team with an existing property. It's another to connect it so much that it's lazy. Just look at the San Jose Barracuda. Their logo incorporates the team's presenting sponsor: Barracuda Networks. However, rather than being lazy and copy pasting the Barracuda logo as the SJ Barracuda logo, they evolved it. The team altered the color of the logo to with the team's colors. They added a barracuda mascot on top of the Barracuda logo as well as a wordmark. They took Barracuda Network's logo as a base and evolved it. Are you saying that's the same as what the MV Phantoms did? Is there no way the team could've made a brand new logo using the same exact same color palette as Phantom Fireworks and the use the same purple phantom character but in a new design that fits the hockey team better than slapping "Hockey" text below the logo? Would that still not connect the team to the ubiquitous brand that is Phantom Fireworks in the Mahoning Valley? 

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Considering both market themselves as department stores, regardless of which approach they took, their markets interfere with each other.

 

So you admit your point was wrong?

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Never questioned the fashion aspects, just the concept.

 

...*whoosh*...

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Actually, Coca-Cola Corporation of Erie is a fictitious company I just made up. I was giving the implication of a second company using the same or similar name and trying to sell similar products because the name or items sold would confuse the customer.

 

Next time, use Google to verify your fictitious company is actually fictitious. For example, you would've known your New York Yankees football team argument was flawed. 

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

I'm for the protection of trademark (i.e., the name and identifying logo in and of itself). Copyright, no. I think infinity and a day is a little egregious. Especially since it's basically Walt Disney backing the continued extension of copyright. 25 years from date of creation for copyright is more than enough. Regardless who owns it. But, copyright isn't trademark. Trademark should be enforced for as long as the trademark is used by the party.

 

To my knowledge, the Philadelphia Eagles are still using their trademark aren't they? And the Cincinnati Bengals? And the Minnesota Vikings? Etcetera, etcetera. 

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

There was also the St. Louis Cardinals and St. Louis Cardinals. The Yankees was just a random example. There was others. Didn't realize the SECOND New York Yankees football team was owned by the New York Yankees baseball team.

 

But, in your exuberance, you failed to realize there was an NFL team named the New York Yankees in the 20s that WASN'T owned by the New York Yankees.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Yankees_%28NFL%29

 

It's funny how I could confuse that. If only the Yankees football team of the 40s didn't show up before the 20s team that came before them. If only teams followed trademark law and didn't openly infringe on other people's existing property. If only a certain group of people sought out to educated teams about using trademarks they did not owned and the potential pitfalls they might come across. Oh well, that'll never happen, it's a lost cause after all...

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

To quote Allen Iverson: For who? For what?

 

...*whoosh*...

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

I think you're talking about Amazon's 1-click patent. Not a trademark.

 

I was actually using the "merchandise displayed on a white background" patent to try and provide a facetious point. Trying to debate a Honeywell get's tiring after awhile. 

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Then they're clearly infringing their logo. How is that not obvious to you that that is not what I was arguing? Where on the shirt is their any identification of the high school's name or insignia?

 

I...what are you arguing? Do you even have a point when arguing me? It seems you're cherry picking here and there across multiple fields of law in order to construct an argument against me for the shear point of continuing the argument. I'm talking about HIGH SCHOOLS USING TRADEMARKED LOGOS THEY DO NOT OWN. Let me repeat that. I'm talking about HIGH SCHOOLS USING TRADEMARKED LOGOS THEY DO NOT OWN. Why have you been brining up the names of teams? What's the purpose of throwing in copyright law into this topic of discussion?

 

My OP asked if there was a group of people out there who were educating high schools why they shouldn't be using the logos of NFL teams and college teams and smaller minor league teams; even if they have permission as in the case of the NFL. Do you care to talk about high schools using trademarked logos anymore or are you replying just because you get some sort of arousal debating people online by getting them off-track?

 

If so, please open another another topic thread to discuss whatever the hell you are talking about. Otherwise, I'm going to get back to discussing this topic with the numerous individuals who are keeping the conversation on the topic of discussion rather than going off on multiple tangents in the same post. From this last statement, you and I seem to have a similar opinion on this topic. I agree they're infringing on the Patriots logo with the sweater. However, I also think they're infringing on the Patriots logo with the shirt to the right though it's a slightly less severe infringement. However, it's still infringement which is why I'm advocating that schools shouldn't use trademarked logos and instead should use original designs or stock designs that were created with the intent of one team having stronger ownership rights over another. 

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

I'm not a designer. Nor do I really care (surprise!). For me to support the government acting as 'protection' for someone, I have to feel there is harm to someone.

 

Otherwise, it's just a bully tactic.

 

You can think that. However, how is what I'm not advocating different then the numerous times I've seen Chris or well-known designers in the community retweet designers who've caught people using their trademarked designs without permission. Are they not, to a small extent, inciting a mob to go after these trademark infringers? If you made a design, would you not like it if someone made you 1) aware that your design could be infringing on someone else's work or 2) aware someone ripped your design and is making a profit off of it? If not, why are you a participant in this forum? Talk about sports logos over on Reddit if you have a passive interest in them. I don't think you understand the principles of helping one another out through acts of selflessness with the hopes to foster a better community at-large, no matter the size of impact on oneself. 

 

18 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

And we end with an insult. I thought we were being civil.

 

...*sigh*...I guess I have enough in me for one more...

 

Sorry. I was taught by a psychiatrist that when talking to a child, it's best you lower yourself down to eye level so they feel more apart of the conversation and feel more comfortable with you. I was merely trying to communicate at your level of logic so that you'd be able to understand the words coming out of my fingers better since you seem to have an elementary-level understanding of sarcasm. So, instead of using thought to come up with a comeback, I just blurted out Donald Trump since he seems like even those in the lowest common denominator has some sort of understanding about him and what he represents. #MakeSportsLogosGreatAgain 

 

[Sykotyk]

2 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

 

It's amazing how advocating that if high schools stopped using trademarked logos, even if its from an NFL team with permission, situations like this wouldn't happen. It's nice though that you've finally flip-flopped though on this debate. Welcome, brother. 

I never advocated that high schools sell direct recreations of NFL logos.

 

How you think I did shows a lack of understanding on your part.

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, mark_lavis said:

 

It's one thing to connect a team with an existing property. It's another to connect it so much that it's lazy. Just look at the San Jose Barracuda. Their logo incorporates the team's presenting sponsor: Barracuda Networks. However, rather than being lazy and copy pasting the Barracuda logo as the SJ Barracuda logo, they evolved it. The team altered the color of the logo to with the team's colors. They added a barracuda mascot on top of the Barracuda logo as well as a wordmark. They took Barracuda Network's logo as a base and evolved it. Are you saying that's the same as what the MV Phantoms did? Is there no way the team could've made a brand new logo using the same exact same color palette as Phantom Fireworks and the use the same purple phantom character but in a new design that fits the hockey team better than slapping "Hockey" text below the logo? Would that still not connect the team to the ubiquitous brand that is Phantom Fireworks in the Mahoning Valley? 

 

It isn't a 'presenting sponsor'. The team was owned by one and the same.

 

My guess is he liked the name and liked the logo. Why redo what you already think is great? If it were 'Phantoms' without the Phantom Fireworks logo, it'd really look odd.

 

Quote

 

So you admit your point was wrong?

 

 

...*whoosh*...

 

You infer points that don't exist. You also seem to be confused by your own argument. An NFL team and a HS athletic department are two entirely different things. A national retailer and a national retailer are the same.

 

Quote

 

Next time, use Google to verify your fictitious company is actually fictitious. For example, you would've known your New York Yankees football team argument was flawed. 

 

Because I knew the 1920s incarnation wasn't owned by the Yankees. God forbid the Yankees then started their own 20 years later. But, you failed to see that. Or account for how a St. Louis Cardinals football team could move into a market with a long-established St. Louis Cardinals baseball team without an issue.

 

Secondly, there is no Coca-Cola Corporation of Erie, PA. There's a bottling company that clearly has 'Bottling Co.' in its name. It's not the fictitous "Coca-Cola Corporation" that I described. Which indicates you've entirely missed the point of the example. However... here, in case you can't fathom how to google:

 

Coca-Cola Bottling Co  

Address: 2209 W 50th St, Erie, PA 16506

 

Quote

 

To my knowledge, the Philadelphia Eagles are still using their trademark aren't they? And the Cincinnati Bengals? And the Minnesota Vikings? Etcetera, etcetera. 

 

And which high school advertises themselves as the Philadelphia Eagles, Cincinnati Bengals, or Minnesota Vikings?

 

Quote

 

It's funny how I could confuse that. If only the Yankees football team of the 40s didn't show up before the 20s team that came before them. If only teams followed trademark law and didn't openly infringe on other people's existing property. If only a certain group of people sought out to educated teams about using trademarks they did not owned and the potential pitfalls they might come across. Oh well, that'll never happen, it's a lost cause after all...

 

 

...*whoosh*...

 

Maybe because the trademark was no longer in use? Go look at the AAFC Cleveland Browns originally to be named the Cleveland Panthers but a team already existed with that name and they had to go back to their second choice, the Browns. As of 1946, there was no football team named the New York Yankees so the name was fair game. Regardless of who wanted to use it.

 

I think that whooshing sound you hear is the echo inside your own room.

 

(quoted text (not sure what happened here that it disappeared) I was actually using the "merchandise displayed on a white background" patent to try and provide a facetious point. Trying to debate a Honeywell get's tiring after awhile.  (end quote)

 

First, you keep jumping from patents, trademarks, and copyrights. All three are different. They have different rules. Just because the USPTO handles them does not make them one and the same.

 

Secondly, because someone files for a patent does not make their patent valid. Even if the USPTO issues the patent, does not mean it can't be argued in court that there exists prior use of said idea or invention. But, that's how patents work. First one to claim ownership (and then prove they're the original creator) get to keep it. But just because companies dump thousands of patents onto the USPTO hoping they'll stick and then use that as leverage to squash competition doesn't make it legal. They're just hoping to throw their weight around.

 

 

Quote

 

I...what are you arguing? Do you even have a point when arguing me? It seems you're cherry picking here and there across multiple fields of law in order to construct an argument against me for the shear point of continuing the argument. I'm talking about HIGH SCHOOLS USING TRADEMARKED LOGOS THEY DO NOT OWN. Let me repeat that. I'm talking about HIGH SCHOOLS USING TRADEMARKED LOGOS THEY DO NOT OWN. Why have you been brining up the names of teams? What's the purpose of throwing in copyright law into this topic of discussion?

 

First. You're the one with the hard on for vigilantism. I just personally don't feel the need to tell everyone else to abide by someone else's wishes. If the trademark holder has an issue, they can search out the violators and remedy the situation. It's not your fight.

 

You seem to think it is. The fact you're getting so enraged over it just proves the point. You have some deep-seated issue with it. If you have the Flying Elvii logo with "Clinton City Patriots" under it, you're not confusing them with the "New England Patriots". If it's just the Flying Elvii logo and nothing else, in the exact same colors as the New England Patriots, you are.

 

That's the difference. If not for your repeated harping on the issue, I'd put you in the 'illiterate' category as to who would be confused by this. But that's obviously not the case.

 

The name in conjunction with the logo does more to differentiate a trademark than the logo by itself. I don't have one issue with the NFL going after that school, or more particularly that retailer, for selling that product as it's a blatant money grab using the NFL's logo. The shirt to the right? Nope. No problem with it. It should stay and be sold... see the difference?

 

** whooosh **

 

There's that sound again. You might want to check your windows for leaks.

 

Quote

 

My OP asked if there was a group of people out there who were educating high schools why they shouldn't be using the logos of NFL teams and college teams and smaller minor league teams; even if they have permission as in the case of the NFL. Do you care to talk about high schools using trademarked logos anymore or are you replying just because you get some sort of arousal debating people online by getting them off-track?

 

I've actually been quite entertained by your mental gymnastics to explain why this is your fight to fight. Did you make one of these NFL marks and don't like to see the dirty handed high schools using your work uncompensated?

 

I'd have the same disdain for you if you went to convenience stores making sure those "Not for Resale" bottles weren't being sold individually. Unless you work for the company selling the product, I can't fathom why it matters to you.

 

Your lot in life will not improve if someone is using someone else's trademark. It will not raise the going rate for graphic designers. It will not give you more prestige or notoriety if there's fewer knockoffs in this world. Of any stripe.

 

Again, it's not your fight.

 

I don't waste my time fighting things that have zero bearing on me. You seem to think you should. That concept boggles my mind. Surely you have something more productive that positively impacts your life to set your sights on. Instead, you want to be the neighbor yelling at the kids for skateboarding in the cul-de-sac. Whether it's illegal or not.

[mark_lavis]

...so would anyone be interested in forming some sort of volunteer group based around education?

[Gothamite]

15 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

First. You're the one with the hard on for vigilantism. I just personally don't feel the need to tell everyone else to abide by someone else's wishes. If the trademark holder has an issue, they can search out the violators and remedy the situation. It's not your fight.

 

Suggesting that people don't have the right to an opinion on an issue outside of their own personal experience is a very odd tactic to adopt on an Internet message board. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

12 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

 

You're the one with the hard on for vigilantism. I just personally don't feel the need to tell everyone else to abide by someone else's wishes. If the trademark holder has an issue, they can search out the violators and remedy the situation. It's not your fight.

 

 

You seem to think it is. The fact you're getting so enraged over it just proves the point...I've actually been quite entertained by your mental gymnastics to explain why this is your fight to fight. Did you make one of these NFL marks and don't like to see the dirty handed high schools using your work uncompensated?

 

I'd have the same disdain for you if you went to convenience stores making sure those "Not for Resale" bottles weren't being sold individually. Unless you work for the company selling the product, I can't fathom why it matters to you.

 

Your lot in life will not improve if someone is using someone else's trademark. It will not raise the going rate for graphic designers. It will not give you more prestige or notoriety if there's fewer knockoffs in this world. Of any stripe.

 

Again, it's not your fight.

 

I don't waste my time fighting things that have zero bearing on me. You seem to think you should. That concept boggles my mind. Surely you have something more productive that positively impacts your life to set your sights on. Instead, you want to be the neighbor yelling at the kids for skateboarding in the cul-de-sac. Whether it's illegal or not.

 

You should be aware that there exist motivations other than one's own narrow personal interests. For someone to act in order to promote something which that person perceives as just or fair is perfectly natural, even if the actor receives no benefit (apart from the psychic benefit that comes from the satisfaction of having done one's part for what is right).

 

By claiming not to get why someone would be worked up about a matter in which he has no personal stake -- and, worse, by expressing disdain for such a position -- you perhaps reveal a lack of understanding of the concepts of ethics and citizenship.

[jaha32]

Regardless of the law, I don't see what's wrong with someone encouraging originality and creativity, especially on a website that thrives on creativity. The difficult part would be finding an approach that high school AD's and coaches are willing to listen to.

 

[mark_lavis]

Just now, jaha32 said:

Regardless of the law, I don't see what's wrong with someone encouraging originality and creativity, especially on a website that thrives on creativity. The difficult part would be finding an approach that high school AD's and coaches are willing to listen to.

 

 

I think the best way is to show the positives from a fundraising standpoint for the athletic programs and show success stories of high schools doing this.

 

For example, here's a link to a story about a high school in South Carolina trademarking their logo and seeing a return on investment a school whose using a trademarked logo could never legally make.

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/preps/2010-12-06-high-school-logos-trademark_N.htm

 

Also, as they point out later in the article, it's also important to show how the schools are on thin ice when they're using trademarked logos. All it takes is a one phone call from the NFL or a college whose trademark you are using to stop the school's athletic program in its tracks; creating an immediate and costly rebrand in many instances that they have to pay for out of the blue without any plan to do so.

 

It's important for schools to be proactive about making sure their branding is safe, no matter how safe they might feel infringing on someone else's trademark, even if they are just a small high school. Yes, it is an expense. However, why not fix the potential issue permanently now rather than sweeping it under the rug and hoping the trademark owners don't come knocking. 

[Sykotyk]

9 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Suggesting that people don't have the right to an opinion on an issue outside of their own personal experience is a very odd tactic to adopt on an Internet message board. 

 

9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You should be aware that there exist motivations other than one's own narrow personal interests. For someone to act in order to promote something which that person perceives as just or fair is perfectly natural, even if the actor receives no benefit (apart from the psychic benefit that comes from the satisfaction of having done one's part for what is right).

 

Anything you do outside of paid work IS your own narrow personal interest. If you catalog bugs, or flowers, or birds or SPORTS LOGOS, then that is your own narrow personal interest. No matter how broad you think it is.

 

If he enjoyed doing this, then that's his personal interest. He's been quite clear he enjoys the idea of telling others to stop using others logos.

 

9 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

By claiming not to get why someone would be worked up about a matter in which he has no personal stake -- and, worse, by expressing disdain for such a position -- you perhaps reveal a lack of understanding of the concepts of ethics and citizenship.

 

Again. Even though it doesn't affect him directly doesn't mean it's not of interest to him.

 

Secondly, citizenship does not mean you have to agree with the rules or that you need to take the rules into your own hands. The guy who road rages because someone broke some very rarely punishable traffic offense doesn't make it better than just letting the police handle enforcement.

 

In this case, enforcement is up to the trademark holder.

 

 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

29 minutes ago, Sykotyk said:

Anything you do outside of paid work IS your own narrow personal interest.

 

You have misunderstood my use of the word "interest".  I didn't mean "that which you are interested in"; I meant the more basic meaning "that which affects you (chiefly financially, but perhaps otherwise)".   So when I have my sociological cap on and am talking about "workers' interests", I am using the more basic meaning of "things which affect workers as a class"; I am not referring to the things that workers like to do.

 

I may be interested in the goings on of my favourite team; but I have no interest in the team.  This difference in meaning is reflected in the terms "disinterested" (having no ties to any party) versus "uninterested" (not moved to pay attention).  You want a judge who is disinterested, not one who is uninterested.

So "narrow personal interest" most definitely does not mean "anything you do outside of paid work".  It refers to only those things which have a material effect on you.  

 

I hope that this terminological confusion is now resolved.  On to the issue.

A high school's use of a pro team's logo has no material effect on anyone who is not a part owner of the team whose logo is being used.  But this does not mean that only the owners of the team in question may reasonably object to this practice.  As I mentioned, a person does not need a personal interest (according to the basic definition of the word) in order to object to something.  Objection can be on principled grounds.

Or, if you like, we could define principled grounds in terms of broad interests: a person could believe that the collective interests of society are best served by upholding existing legal standards and by holding violators accountable.  Informing the authorities is then is the job of everyone, not just the harmed parties.

(As an aside: on the specific example of schools using pro teams' logos, I actually don't agree with this position. I am in favour of far looser standards on all uses of intellectual property by non-owners.  But I see the reasoning of the people who think that tighter rules help artists and creators; and I don't think that people who report violators are doing anything absurd.  They are advancing what they perceive to be their collective interests as members of the creative community rather than any narrow personal interests as owners of the pro teams in question.)

Your traffic example actually cuts the other way.  Someone who sees a driver blowing a red light could reasonably report the driver to the police, even if that driver didn't run over the witness.  The witness has an interest as a member of society in the strict enforcement of traffic laws, which is an important aspect of public safety.

 

[dont care]

but by law its only the trademark holders responsibility to defend their trademark or lose it. These teams are the only ones that need to protect their logos. if this guy want to go on a vendetta against atheist fine but its really only the teams that have the legal grounds to get these schools to not use trademarked logos. he can only make suggestions with the majority of schools won't take because they don't want to have to pay a designer now for a possible benefit later. a school thinks about the current budget and making that work, not the future really.

[Sykotyk]

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

You have misunderstood my use of the word "interest".  I didn't mean "that which you are interested in"; I meant the more basic meaning "that which affects you (chiefly financially, but perhaps otherwise)".   So when I have my sociological cap on and am talking about "workers' interests", I am using the more basic meaning of "things which affect workers as a class"; I am not referring to the things that workers like to do.

 

I get your meaning of 'interest'. I thought you were meaning personal intrigue or fascination of a topic.

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I may be interested in the goings on of my favourite team; but I have no interest in the team.  This difference in meaning is reflected in the terms "disinterested" (having no ties to any party) versus "uninterested" (not moved to pay attention).  You want a judge who is disinterested, not one who is uninterested.

So "narrow personal interest" most definitely does not mean "anything you do outside of paid work".  It refers to only those things which have a material effect on you.  

 

Narrow personal interest could also just mean what a limited scope of influence you have on the greater world, as well. I enjoy collecting coins, attending athletic games, travel & related road related news, and news of soon to be logo or uniform updates. Hardly a mover and shaker of the modern world. I would call my interest a narrow field as though I do dabble in other things, the amount of time they hold are minimal at best and probably differ very little from anyone else who doesn't have a direct interest in those fields.

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

I hope that this terminological confusion is now resolved.  On to the issue.

 

Indeed.

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

A high school's use of a pro team's logo has no material effect on anyone who is not a part owner of the team whose logo is being used.  But this does not mean that only the owners of the team in question may reasonably object to this practice.  As I mentioned, a person does not need a personal interest (according to the basic definition of the word) in order to object to something.  Objection can be on principled grounds.

 

There's many people offended by things that don't affect them. Sports logos wouldn't then be surprising.

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Or, if you like, we could define principled grounds in terms of broad interests: a person could believe that the collective interests of society are best served by upholding existing legal standards and by holding violators accountable.  Informing the authorities is then is the job of everyone, not just the harmed parties.

 

But trademark doesn't have 'authorities' the same a 'home invasion' would. Someone breaks into a house as you're driving by, you call the cops and they show up and question the intruders and can detain them for a reasonable amount of time until a judge rules on whether to release them or hold them with or without bail before their trial. A trademark dispute by a third party could only result in tracking down the owner, contacting them, and giving the example.

 

The problem I have is the assumption of guilt.  You also judge exactly whether the logo is in violation of trademark law or not before ever proceeding. Trademark is a civil matter. No one can go for jail for violating a trademark (you can for fraud, but fraud is a different beast, and yes sometimes the two overlap).

 

You don't know if there is some agreement in place. Written or verbal. You also don't know the extent of the original trademark of the school you think owns the trademark. You don't know if they originally owned it or received permission from another third party.

 

Instead, you'd be contacted someone regardless of the knowledge of their right to use the trademark. Only the trademark holder would know who and when rights of use have been established with third parties. Hence the reason it's the trademark holder, and only the trademark holder, is responsible for enforcement. And the first step is a D&D letter followed by a lawsuit.

 

Then it's up to a judge.

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

(As an aside: on the specific example of schools using pro teams' logos, I actually don't agree with this position. I am in favour of far looser standards on all uses of intellectual property by non-owners.  But I see the reasoning of the people who think that tighter rules help artists and creators; and I don't think that people who report violators are doing anything absurd.  They are advancing what they perceive to be their collective interests as members of the creative community rather than any narrow personal interests as owners of the pro teams in question.)

 

I accept tighter rules for copyright. Such as movies or music or written or artistic works. But, I also agree that at a certain point it becomes public domain. The window to profit from said work should be minimal. I also feel 'live performance or exhibition' should be the means of achieving revenue when it comes to the RIAA or MPAA (movie threaters, selling movie or music and content in hard-copy form).

 

For trademark, there has to be clear proof of confusion and resulting loss of revenue because of it. Which is how trademarks worked. At one time. Hence my mark about the New York Yankees and the 1926-era New York Yankees NFL teams NOT owned by the baseball team, despite OP's insistence that a 1946 incarnation somehow supersedes the claim (?).

 

A long time ago, trademarks were less 'defined' in relation to art. Logos and wordmarks were simple or stylistic. Similar didn't mean anything back then. One brand could easily style their packages in a similar fashion as long the name or logo was not identical. And when the logo IS the word in a stylized form, just the word being different was enough to differentiate the products advertised.

 

The problem was when trademarks became something OTHER than stylized words. When they became images rather than insignias, crests, or some type of letterhead styling. They became like the Pepsi circle, the Target bullseye,  the McDonalds yellow arches, etc. Where words no longer were needed and 'similar' was a lot harder to decipher. Was that intentional? Not sure. But, it gave the trademark holders untold power to fight off competition by demanding anything similar to their wordless trademark as infringing.

 

As the OP pointed to with the NE Patriots knockoffs, the one on the left I have a problem with, the one on the right, not at all. One is defined as a high school's shirt being sold. The left one undefined and clearly the NE Patriots Flying Elvii logo And in that regard, a direct infringement. The one on the right, no.

 

 

5 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

Your traffic example actually cuts the other way.  Someone who sees a driver blowing a red light could reasonably report the driver to the police, even if that driver didn't run over the witness.  The witness has an interest as a member of society in the strict enforcement of traffic laws, which is an important aspect of public safety.

 

 

There are people that think they can make a 'citizens arrest', however no one has the power to detain another other than law enforcement. Now if someone wields a weapon and is subdued until the police arrive, yes, that is permitted due to imminent harm. I just watched a video of a woman calling the police because a man flipped her off and called her a *i*ch. She had blocked a street to do this. The video cuts out before police arrive (hopefully to arrest her), but that, to me, exhibits the problems with thinking the general population can do their own policing. They get overly confused on what is or is not the law. And have different thresholds for different 'crimes' they get upset about. Situations a normal police officer would usually shrug at as not worth their time due to the more blatant and troublesome activities people do while driving.

 

There's a reason police go through training and actually have to at least vaguely know the law and understand the triage it requires in enforcement (especially due to non-life threatening transgressions). The everyday populace does not.

 

I personally think it's powerless people wanting to experience the feeling of power.

[Gothamite]

Well, that last bit is just silly. 

 

You have repeatedly opined about the source of opinions of those with whom you have an intellectual disagreement.  Which is very poor form. 

 

Can an we please leave the amateur physiology to talk radio charlatans, and focus on the substance of the arguments themselves?