ShinyHubCaps

Las Vegas NHL Expansion

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, the admiral said:

The Maloofs are minority owners of this team.

I should have phrased my post better.  I knew this but should have said "I never thought Foley would makes the Magoof's look like the competent portion of the ownership group."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just change the GD name Foley! Avoid "Knights" altogether! This has just become embarrassing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a story and others surrounding this franchise are straight out of semi-pro sports, what an embarrassment for the NHL. Although this is kind of what they deserve in placing a team in the desert next to the shining beacon of a franchise in Arizona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really you got to love THIS STUFF I love the NHL, the "fastest game on ice", the animals branding, the Arizona Coyotes, the Golden Knights of Las Vegas 

 

WELL DONE GUYS
 

 

giphy (1).gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know whose name and logo would have cleared legal? 

 

The Quebec Nordiques'. Just sayin'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, but I (we) refrain from saying anything. But yes, Nordiques was still under NHL rights.

 

One day at a time, one day at a time..

 

But really, the video not working, the trademark issue blah blah

 

I love all this. That said, I love the logo. But man, is it FUN!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

Is that really a worst case scenario, or best?

 

Maybe you or your gf can clarify this, because I’m not clear on it and I’m sure others are not clear on it, either.

 

When the USPTO examines this, are they examining the name itself against other entities, for example the Clarkson Golden Knights and the College of Saint Rose Golden Knights, or are they examining the visual depiction of the trademark?

 

I ask because in the excerpts from the USPTO, I see the word “mark” used often, which to me is a visual term (but may not be in trademark law). The hierarchy of the words, the typeface, and the stylization thereof are also mentioned, which further leads me to believe that they are examining the visual depiction of the words (the word mark?) when making this ruling.

 

If that’s the case, then it breaks down here, as the document states the following:

 

In this case, the wording “GOLDEN KNIGHTS” is the dominant portion of both the registered and applied-for marks. In the registered mark, the wording “GOLDEN KNIGHTS” appears significantly larger than the subscripted additional text. Further, the “GOLDEN KNIGHTS” wording is centered in the mark, and appears in the more stylized and distinctive typeface as compared to the remaining wording....

 

The first assertion is very clearly not true. The College of Saint Rose’s mark does, in fact, say “Golden Knights” in large text with “College of Saint Rose” positioned underneath in a clear subordinate role, however, the Vegas mark does the opposite, placing “Vegas” in the dominant position while “Golden Knights” is relegated to the subordinate role via size, weight, and location. The document continues:

 

In this case, the marks share the common wording “GOLDEN KNIGHTS,” and the additional wording does not change the overall commercial impression of the marks. The wording “THE COLLEGE OF SAINT ROSE” in the registrant’s mark is presented in such a manner that consumers encountering the mark are likely to read it as a tagline; consumers will focus on the wording “GOLDEN KNIGHTS.”

 

Again, while it’s clear that the focus of the college’s mark is the “Golden Knights” wording, it’s just as clear that the focus of the NHL mark is “Vegas,” and using the examiner’s own logic, consumers encountering the mark are likely to read “Golden Knights” as a tagline, focusing instead on the “Vegas” lettering. Normally I can see both sides of a ruling like this, but the USPTO examiner seems to be contradicting the points he or she is making by pointing out characteristics that are unequivocally unique to each mark to illustrate that the marks are too similar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything about this is peak NHL. 

 

Owner insisting on a bad name with not great logo? Check.

NHL not doing due diligence or convincing the guy to pick a less generic name? Check.

Once checked by the USPTO, both dig in their heels as if somehow they can win? Check.

 

It's just all so unavoidable and nobody realizes that every day we spend talking about this name dispute, is one less day we're buying Vegas hockey gear, booking tickets to see our favourite teams beat the snot out of this expansion team in Vegas or just bandying about a new team in the league. I just...I want to be surprised that these people can be THIS obtuse and yet, I'm just not surprised. 

 

But this Foley guy is living proof that being rich and being forward-thinking and/or smart are not mutually exclusive. It's not even about being bright, just hire better people who would tell you this. I have no doubt somebody working for them thought about this, but he was hellbent on his dumbass West Point homage that they didn't even want themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

You know whose name and logo would have cleared legal? 

 

The Quebec Nordiques'. Just sayin'.

 

Amen.

 

I've been thinking the same thing. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So should I purchase my Golden Knights merchandise now before it goes defunct? Imagine what hipsters would pay for a t-shirt a few years down the road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the dust has settled and we have learned...

 

1.Vegas will fight this, submit "evidence" to reverse the finding (odds, pretty good unless Saint Rose sues but a coin flip honestly). Saint Rose should sue because there is cash there for the taking.

2.Vegas could lose the mark and still use the mark, but with no TM leaving it wide open for knock-off, not really a great option.

3. Saint Rose has basically said at this point just going day by day seeing what happens no decisions yet, fools imo if they don't act, I mean wth is the TM for then?

4.Vegas head lawyer has stated they did not ask Saint Rose and have no intention to or intent to pay anyone. Quite arrogant and argument is semi weak imo as it sounds more like a self entitled baby kicking and screaming.

 

Bottom line, in the next week or so they will have sent off the paper work, several weeks or months later a decision and all along keep selling merch and the Army may or may not jump in.

 

However it turns out I think it is worth noting how disgusting and semi shocking it is that this team purposely avoided the Army and School knowing they shouldn't have yet using their ability to bully and get their foot in the door as a means. They have imo tread all over their likenesses and with intent imo. My hope is the best for everyone but also that everyone reaps what they sow.

 

See you guys in several weeks or months when the Golden Knights will be selecting players or the no names will be a laughing stock yet again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding #4:  I don't think it's arrogance or being a baby.  That could be a legal tactic: if they ask for permission or offer to pay, then it's an admission of guilt or at least an admission of infringement.  Saying that they didn't ask and don't intend to sends a message that they are confident that they have nothing to ask for.

 

Not saying that they're right, just don't read too much into things like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they have to take that "I don't have to ask or pay" tactic but it still makes them look cold, real cold. I mean that school however small does have a trademark, they did use their name and a similar image. To then say we never had to ask, never did never will almost defies common sense and it is that self entitled attitude that may just cost them. Humbling yourself is sometimes the best way to resolve things. The Vegas team couldn't even spell the word humble. To think a billionaire or at this point one may think supposed billionaire would be so cruel and heartless over what to him is chump change is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your question was way beyond my limited understanding of IP law, so I just forwarded it to Jessica. Her response:

 

They are examining the visual depiction of the mark as a whole. The overall appearance, sound (when sounding out the words) stylization, color (if color is claimed as a feature of the mark), etc.

 

Hope that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, VegasBound said:

Humbling yourself is sometimes the best way to resolve things. 

 

Man to man, yes.  Not in legal disputes.  The law knows nothing about arrogance - it's black and white (or at least black and white based on a judge's interpretation of it.)

 

It's like when those bigtime NCAA teams go after junior high schools that use their logos.  They look like bullies, but it's just because they have to be cold and do it like that or they lose the right to defend their marks against anyone, even legit threats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't believe the College of Saint Rose has been the roadblock so far, when they're trampling all over the West Point trademarks IMO.

 

There's still time, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm like Oprah on this thread...you get a like! You get a like! Everyone gets a like! This thread is gold(en Knights)! :) Okay, there is the door. I'll see myself out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.