TheRatPack Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Until resolved and hoping renamed should the NHL keep allowing the sale of merch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianLion Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 15 hours ago, Cujo said: Another identity the Army should take a look at then NY Rangers were founded in 1926. The modern Army Ranger division came about during WWII in 1942. If anything the hockey team could go after the Army, but they'd lose that case since the word "Ranger" is pretty generic and the Army's been using it for almost 75 years now. The Army raising a fuss now within a few days of the "Golden Knights" naming would however be justified because it's a more specific term, and their suit would be well within the reasonable time frame to object, assuming of course that they've properly registered the name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Generally speaking, we on this board tend to put too much weight on logos/uniforms...it's in our nature. When the Wild picked "Wild" I did not think the team was going to be a disaster. When they mitigated it with great logo and uniforms, that did not mean they were going to win a Cup in year five (obviously). So when the "Vegas Golden Knights" had technical difficulties at the unveiling and went with the silly "Vegas" moniker, I certainly did not think it boded one way or the other to how good they'd be on the ice or how successful the NHL would be in Vegas. But could it be argued that this is a hint? That the new ownership did not do some pretty basic homework? Or that they were cocky by asking for forgiveness instead of permission? I don't feel the unveiling or the "Vegas" meant that the franchise was off to a rocky start. But this? This may point in that direction. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnWis97 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 1 hour ago, TheRatPack said: Until resolved and hoping renamed should the NHL keep allowing the sale of merch? Maybe it'll hasten it. #PotentialCollectorsItems. Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse." BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD POTD (Shared) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Here's a good look at what the colors are meant to look like. Not bronze, not teal. http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/vegas_golden_knights_apparel_01.jpg I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Foley stepped in it when he said he had hoped to dilute the Army's trademark to have the Golden Knights parachute into the name announcement to celebrate. Probably for the best considering ill-timed fireworks may have blown them up if they had. But now he's basically admitted that he had hoped to piggyback on the Army's intellectual property for profit. ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYYNYR Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, andrewharrington said: Here's a good look at what the colors are meant to look like. Not bronze, not teal. http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/vegas_golden_knights_apparel_01.jpg Still, though, here are the official logos. Let me know what you think: https://www.nhl.com/goldenknights/team/logos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 2 minutes ago, NYYNYR said: Still, though, here are the official logos. Let me know what you think: https://www.nhl.com/goldenknights/team/logos The PMS-metallic version is the best on-screen replication of the actual colors. It seems a lot of what's floating around is the CMYK version, which makes the gold look bronze and the grey look teal on screen. I have no idea what the CMYK version looks like when printed in the actual CMYK process, but ideally, the CMYK color mix would be best matched to the metallic, or the conversion created by PANTONE would be used. Either way, CMYK is never what you want to use for screen display as it is a print-specific color space. I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 11 hours ago, the admiral said: The Vegas Golden Knights! *a few sparklers go off* THE VEGAS! GOLDEN! KNIGHTS! *rest of fireworks go off* YES, THE VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS! GO BUY MERCHANDISE! *United States Army files infringement lawsuit* THE VEGAS! DESERT! KNIGHTS! *fireworks go off but crooked and light the Maloofs' hair on fire* They would almost certainly accidentally call themselves the Dessert Knights in the press release and then we'd have a new #Perds on our hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRatPack Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Lest we forget he wanted half the BlackHawks name as well lol This guy is a master at unoriginality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 22 hours ago, Ice_Cap said: An idiot who was described at the unveiling as a "hands-on" owner. This'll be fun. Sounds like a whole new chapter in our OITGDNHL book. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 2 hours ago, NYYNYR said: Still, though, here are the official logos. Let me know what you think: https://www.nhl.com/goldenknights/team/logos This is why metallic gold is problematic for a sports team. It looks great embroidered but terrible in print. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VegasBound Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 https://ca.sports.yahoo.com/news/vegas-owner-not-concerned-over-armys-interest-in-golden-knights-name-195638404.html “I knew we were done and I wasn’t really concerned about it and they said they were going to take a look at it,” Foley said in a phone interview with Puck Daddy. So Foley responded, seems he starts by saying they were done (name) and he already knew Army was not happy because they were already looking at it? Odd statement because they said the found out day after reveal. Something isn't right and maybe that is why no one jumped for him they were already not happy? Also I do believe two different ventures can use a similar name BUT you cannot steal the name and general identity as well that is NOT legal. He should not be so arrogant. The very fact he went ahead with this name was a big screw you to Army, this guy doesn't love Army or his school he loves his own ideas...errrrrr other peoples ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmedges Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Why does any branch of the department of defense or the us government for that matter have trademarks of their logos? To me that's like saying using the USA flag on things in in violation of a trademark. The Army isn't a business and it's job is not to make money. I would think that they should be spending their time and effort worrying about other things than a hockey teams nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJR Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Foley basically said this whole time, "I love the Army, I want my team to be like the Army, I'm naming my team after the Army." While no one would look at the Vegas Golden Knights and confuse them for the Golden Knights parachute team, I don't think it's a stretch for someone to think that the Vegas team was somehow endorsed by the Army, especially alongside Foley's comments. That said, I'm no trademark lawyer, so I have no idea if that matters. FantasyHockeySim.com || DetroitHockey.Net || DetroitHockey.Net FHL || cjr.dev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mingjai Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 12 minutes ago, fmedges said: Why does any branch of the department of defense or the us government for that matter have trademarks of their logos? To me that's like saying using the USA flag on things in in violation of a trademark. The Army isn't a business and it's job is not to make money. I would think that they should be spending their time and effort worrying about other things than a hockey teams nickname. The concern is that consumers could be confused as to the source of the good/service. Because it's possible that consumers could believe that the Vegas Golden Knights were somehow affiliated with the Army Golden Knights, US trademark law allows governmental entities to own trademarks and enforce their rights to those marks to prevent confusion. Visit my store on REDBUBBLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 16 minutes ago, fmedges said: Why does any branch of the department of defense or the us government for that matter have trademarks of their logos? To me that's like saying using the USA flag on things in in violation of a trademark. The Army isn't a business and it's job is not to make money. I would think that they should be spending their time and effort worrying about other things than a hockey teams nickname. Per the US Flag Code.... Quote The flag should never be used for any advertising purpose. It should not be embroidered, printed, or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use. Advertising signs should not be attached to the staff or halyard. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmedges Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 7 minutes ago, rams80 said: Per the US Flag Code.... I knew about this I meant more like tshirts but good point. It totally makes sense from a business vs business standpoint and while yes of course there is laws concerning government entities, my opinion is that it's a bit foolish. If I want to make a tshirt with say the Army logo on it my opinion it that I should be able to because the Army is 100% taxpayer owned. Again might not be right but that's my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 Just now, fmedges said: I knew about this I meant more like tshirts but good point. It totally makes sense from a business vs business standpoint and while yes of course there is laws concerning government entities, my opinion is that it's a bit foolish. If I want to make a tshirt with say the Army logo on it my opinion it that I should be able to because the Army is 100% taxpayer owned. Again might not be right but that's my opinion. And the fact that folks might assume you are a serviceperson and defer some benefits to you is entirely uncoincidental to this...(Keep in mind I'm pretty sure impersonating a serviceperson IS a felony) See what Mingjai said above, if you use the Army logo (or the logo of any other government agency) it is typically assumed that you are acting at least in affiliation with them or with their support, if not as part of them. Which is an assumption that can easily be abused ABSENT trademark protection. On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmedges Posted November 29, 2016 Share Posted November 29, 2016 13 minutes ago, rams80 said: And the fact that folks might assume you are a serviceperson and defer some benefits to you is entirely uncoincidental to this...(Keep in mind I'm pretty sure impersonating a serviceperson IS a felony) See what Mingjai said above, if you use the Army logo (or the logo of any other government agency) it is typically assumed that you are acting at least in affiliation with them or with their support, if not as part of them. Which is an assumption that can easily be abused ABSENT trademark protection. The wearing of a service members uniform is in its own weird world between against the law and free speech as are claiming you earned certain military awards see United States v Alvarez. I can see what you guys are saying and it makes sense to a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.