Las Vegas NHL Expansion

[Cosmic]

This reminds me of the Occupy movement when they camped out on public land: "This is public property! It belongs to us!" Well, actually, it belongs to everyone; its use is not to be monopolized by one person or small group of people. You can't/shouldn't make an Army t-shirt because whatever IP the Army has belongs to all the people, and it's not for any specific person to exploit without approval.

 

I don't know if the parachute team is the right way for the Army to go after Vegas.  Does the Army really have the rights to anything called the Golden Knights? I think they should definitely use the West Point route.  That's actually in the same sphere of use.  I'll say it again... if the USPTO thought these two logos were too similar...

 

 

 

 

... then I don't see how these logos are sufficiently unique.

 

 

 

[daniel75]

So if one uses a logo of a knight, spartan whatever helmet, than no one else can? 

[The_Admiral]

Hey everybody, look at me, I'm everyone's favorite guy, That Guy!

 

 

 

Oh? You think it's a problem to name the team after a military division? Oh, well don't tell the Chicago Blackhawks or the Toronto Maple Leafs, two Original Six teams whom I've convinced myself are beyond reproach! I guess it's fiiiiine when Original Six teams do it!

 

 

[VegasBound]

I agree at that time it was fine.

[Cosmic]

1 hour ago, daniel75 said:

So if one uses a logo of a knight, spartan whatever helmet, than no one else can? 

I disagree vehemently with the Iowa-Southern Miss example, but it is the precedent that has been set. Vegas uses a similar helmet as Army's logo, in a similar color scheme, and Foley admits the identity was inspired by the Army. I honestly think I could confuse it for a new Army logo if I hadn't been following the expansion process.

[IceCap]

6 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Sounds like a whole new chapter in our OITGDNHL book.

Chaper 104: Dry Runs are for Losers

[Icedog2735]

So why doesn't the Army go after Clarkson University then too?  Or is it the combo of name and "similar" logo?

[rams80]

6 minutes ago, Icedog2735 said:

So why doesn't the Army go after Clarkson University then too?  Or is it the combo of name and "similar" logo?

 

Combination.  Especially since Spartans weren't knights.

[DustDevil61]

7 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

This is why metallic gold is problematic for a sports team.  It looks great embroidered but terrible in print.

 

  

 

I just don't get how any sports team comes up with dull metallic color as translated to flat print. The embroidered gold is much livelier--it's brighter and more saturated (basically, more yellow--and a sliver more red). Why not use a flat color that's averaged out among the embroidered gold for the print?

[Gothamite]

What teams should do is use a bright athletic gold for their flat applications.   Pick the brightest color in that embroidery pic, and run with it. 

 

Tan more or less re-creates the basic hue but loses all the vibrancy, and therefore misses the mark badly. 

[DustDevil61]

8 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

What teams should do is use a bright athletic gold for their flat applications.   Pick the brightest color in that embroidery pic, and run with it. 

 

Tan more or less re-creates the basic hue but loses all the vibrancy, and therefore misses the mark badly. 

 

That. That works too.

[BrianLion]

14 hours ago, the admiral said:

Hey everybody, look at me, I'm everyone's favorite guy, That Guy!

 

 

 

Oh? You think it's a problem to name the team after a military division? Oh, well don't tell the Chicago Blackhawks or the Toronto Maple Leafs, two Original Six teams whom I've convinced myself are beyond reproach! I guess it's fiiiiine when Original Six teams do it!

 

 

 

This isn't a great example. For one the Blackhawks are named after a military unit that itself was named after a historical figure.  The Maple Leafs are supposedly named after a military unit with an extremely generic name that's also a national symbol.  In neither instance was the name/color scheme of the military unit trademarked either.

 

"Golden Knights" is a specific term referring to a unit of the military that performs at public events and holds (allegedly) trademarks on their name.  

[Oso]

Foley's comments to ESPN.com about this issue.

 

"Our development and use of the name Vegas Golden Knights was based upon Nevada being the largest gold producing state in the country and the golden tones of the Las Vegas strip," 

 

Rigggggghhhhhhtttttt Bill.. And I have a casino in Pahrump I'd like to sell you. Your story would be far more believable if you didn't make it clear and obvious from the get go that you had a raging hard on to name the team something Army-esque. People aren't stupid. The name Golden Knights was selected because it allowed you to stroke your Army itch. That bit about gold mining in Nevada and the Vegas skyline are all secondary bs.

[TheRatPack]

I like how he has now added the gold of the Vegas strip lol Most important that Northern Canadian owned mine no one in Vegas knew or cared about. Clearly a cover story without a doubt which would make my desire to see Army call his bluff. Speaking of which he keeps bluffing he has copyright and trademarks, truth is he has NOTHING yet it hasn;t even been examined he basically had NHL fill out the paper work ask for it that is it. Army has an open door to challenge.

 

Just reading older articles and saw this...notice he didnt name the team for a mine in Northern Nevada or a Vegas strip he did it because of what the Army Golden Knights stand for...he has changed his tune pretty fast...Foley be scared Foley talk too much lol

 

"Whether it is accepted and liked by ticket buyers, it’s a nickname that fits Foley and his beliefs perfectly. Promoted as Champions of the Skies, the Army’s parachute team is know as the Golden Knights, and within a job of flying the American flag at 12,000 feet and passing a baton at 120 MPH and landing dead center on a small target are those qualities around which Foley hopes to build his team.

“Knights are the protectors, the epitome of the warrior class,” he said. “They’re team-orientated. They never give up. They never give in. Hockey players are warriors. They always have been. That’s us. That’s what we will be.

“We wanted to have the Golden Knights drop in for the ceremony, but it got kind of complicated.”

 

 

AND A BIGGER WHOPPER!

 

 

http://vegasseven.com/2016/11/22/vegas-golden-knights-team-arrived/

I mean come on he even said what Golden represented that night when asked….

 

“Foley, the West Point alum who committed $500 million to the team and will never have to buy a drink in Las Vegas again, had long promised to include “Knights” in the name as a nod to his alma mater and because they represented “the highest element of the warrior class.”

“Golden,” according to Foley, acknowledges both the U.S. Army Parachute Team and the glamour of Las Vegas. “Everything here is gold, even golden sunsets. I think it’s a great tie-in.”

The man knowingly named them after the Army team THAT is copyright infringement.

 

[BeerGuyJordan]

I'm dating a paralegal at an IP firm. I asked her about it, and she casually asked one of the lawyers what he thought. His response was:

 

"It's not a slam dunk, but I've certainly won cases with less to go on."

 

A fitting time for my inaugural ise of OITGDNHL.

[BeerGuyJordan]

She expanded on the issue:

 

"Even if the Army doesn't have a registered trademark for the name or the logo, if they can prove use of the mark for as many years as they say, they may have common law rights to the mark. The logo on the other hand...the color, style and overall appearance of the mark is different enough that Vegas could make a pretty good case that they aren't infringing on the logo. Logo cases are harder to prove anyways, usually because there are so many different elements to the mark, i.e. color, shading, shape, etc.

 

But if the two are brought forward on a single case? I don't see a clear winner, could go either way.

 

If Vegas was smart, they would have filed for trademarks for both the word mark and the logo, separately. You get broader coverage with a word mark than you do with a logo. Which means the word mark could have the potential for an infringement case if the army decides to send them a cease and desist letter.

 

If they can work out a co-existence agreement, possibly share some of the royalties with the Army, they could potentially get away with it. Based on how the Army does things, though, they prefer to distance themselves from such high profile ties and would likely rather it all be shut down."

[TheRatPack]

No doubt by Foley's own words he damned himself by stating he named it after them, used their likeness, mantra, colors (some what) and name. They have all they need to stop it if they wanted, imo. it looks even worse for him that he is now stating otherwise. He is running scared imo and back tracking.

[BeerGuyJordan]

13 minutes ago, TheRatPack said:

No doubt by Foley's own words he damned himself by stating he named it after them, used their likeness, mantra, colors (some what) and name. They have all they need to stop it if they wanted, imo. it looks even worse for him that he is now stating otherwise. He is running scared imo and back tracking.

You would think that the NHL would have people in place dedicated to vetting this process and avoiding these types of headaches. 

 

Is it just me, or does it feel like every new owner turns into a damned embarassing "learning experience" for the League?

[Mingjai]

14 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

She expanded on the issue:

 

"Even if the Army doesn't have a registered trademark for the name or the logo, if they can prove use of the mark for as many years as they say, they may have common law rights to the mark. The logo on the other hand...the color, style and overall appearance of the mark is different enough that Vegas could make a pretty good case that they aren't infringing on the logo. Logo cases are harder to prove anyways, usually because there are so many different elements to the mark, i.e. color, shading, shape, etc.

 

But if the two are brought forward on a single case? I don't see a clear winner, could go either way.

 

If Vegas was smart, they would have filed for trademarks for both the word mark and the logo, separately. You get broader coverage with a word mark than you do with a logo. Which means the word mark could have the potential for an infringement case if the army decides to send them a cease and desist letter.

 

If they can work out a co-existence agreement, possibly share some of the royalties with the Army, they could potentially get away with it. Based on how the Army does things, though, they prefer to distance themselves from such high profile ties and would likely rather it all be shut down."

 

I would assume that the Army would only go forward on the mark, not the logo. I do consulting for in IP litigation (mostly patent work), and would second the sentiment that I've seen case won on much worse facts than these. Based on what I recall from my trademark law classes, this case seems like it would be pretty straightforward--not seeing a PTO registration for the Army, the Army would have to demonstrate that they have used the mark such that they have common law rights. Defining the scope of the Army's rights to the mark is the more difficult part. Once the Army's rights are established, the infringement/dilution cases with respect to the mark would be relatively easy.

 

Context is very important, especially if the matter gets in front of a jury: here, an "evil" corporate corporate entity led by an "eccentric" billionaire with military ties who knew about the Army's parachute team is trying to capitalize on years of goodwill built up by servicemen and women who risk their lives to keep America safe. Not a very sympathetic story for Foley et al.

[TheRatPack]

Boy I wish the Army lawyers read this thread