Las Vegas NHL Expansion

[Kevin W.]

On 12/10/2016 at 5:32 AM, bleuet said:

Couldnt refrain from doing it. I think it got the spirit!

Close, but not quite surly enough to be French Canadian.

[rams80]

2 hours ago, WavePunter said:

I just told you that they're comprised of various items, which happen to include two that are similar.. However, the shields are visually different, from shape to outlines to shade of gold (which is quite different); and the helmets are very different in a number of ways [orientation, overall shape, crest on top of West Point helmet logo, additional colors (white and grey) in Vegas logo].. Not to mention the additional items (sword and star) in the West Point logo, and overall composition of the two..

 

I get it you're a lawyer.  That said you're missing the forest for the trees.

[BeerGuyJordan]

Here's a field test.

 

I showed the West Point and Vegas logos to a coworker (she literally won the office fantasy football league based on pretty uniforms and handsome players). I only said, "What do you think of these two team logos?" Her literal response:

 

"I mean, the old one is a little cluttered, I think the team's new logo is simpler and better looking."

 

One thing we often forget is that the USPTO is making decisions based on consideration of people like her, who pretty much know nothing about sports.

 

Like it or not, the Army has a legitimate case. The strength of it can be debated.

 

Foley can overrule his people, he owns the team. The real failure here is the watchdog lawyers the NHL supposedly employs. Their job is to protect the League from embarassments, like this.

 

Make no mistake: Win or lose, Vegas' identity woes (unveiling, Army and USPTO) are an embarassment to the NHL.

[IceCap]

44 minutes ago, BeerGuyJordan said:

The real failure here is the watchdog lawyers the NHL supposedly employs. Their job is to protect the League from embarassments, like this.

This is a league that ok'd the sale of a team in the largest media market in North America to a guy with no money living in a model home. This is par for the course, really

[BeerGuyJordan]

25 minutes ago, Ice_Cap said:

This is a league that ok'd the sale of a team in the largest media market in North America to a guy with no money living in a model home. This is par for the course, really

In that instance, the NHL admitted due dilligence fell by the wayside. They had assumed the selling owner would have done it.

 

The League has stated that their lawyers gave this the thumbs up, which is even worse, in some ways.

[Gothamite]

6 hours ago, WavePunter said:

I just told you that they're comprised of various items, which happen to include two that are similar.. However, the shields are visually different, from shape to outlines to shade of gold (which is quite different); and the helmets are very different in a number of ways [orientation, overall shape, crest on top of West Point helmet logo, additional colors (white and grey) in Vegas logo].. Not to mention the additional items (sword and star) in the West Point logo, and overall composition of the two..

 

We've seen in the past that broad strokes are all you need for infringement.  Take these two interlocking "SC" logos:

 

                                 

 

 

These two are different in all the details - the accent colors, the points where they interlock, one is block letters, square ends and hard corners where the other is fluid with serifs.  Yet the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's administrative tribunal ruled in 2008 that South Carolina could not trademark its logo because of the similarities to Southern California's logo.  A decision which was later upheld by the courts.

 

All I'm saying is that sometimes all you need for infringement is a big-picture similarity.  Gold ancient helmet on black shield just may be enough to cause headaches for the NHL club.

[JayMac]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

This is a league that ok'd the sale of a team in the largest media market in North America to a guy with no money living in a model home. This is par for the course, really

This will always be the benchmark to which no league wishes to attain.

[swilson160]

2 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

This is a league that ok'd the sale of a team in the largest media market in North America to a guy with no money living in a model home. This is par for the course, really

 

"On the next Arrested Development..."

[CreamSoda]

4 minutes ago, swilson160 said:

 

"On the next Arrested Development..."

 

They could always play in the Banana Stand

[MDGP]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

 

We've seen in the past that broad strokes are all you need for infringement.  Take these two interlocking "SC" logos:

 

                                 

 

 

These two are different in all the details - the accent colors, the points where they interlock, one is block letters, square ends and hard corners where the other is fluid with serifs.  Yet the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's administrative tribunal ruled in 2008 that South Carolina could not trademark its logo because of the similarities to Southern California's logo.  A decision which was later upheld by the courts.

 

All I'm saying is that sometimes all you need for infringement is a big-picture similarity.  Gold ancient helmet on black shield just may be enough to cause headaches for the NHL club.

 

Iowa and Southern Miss is another one (though your example is better at showing just how broad this can be). Two yellow birds that quite frankly don't look all that alike. Still, when it came down to it, trademark violation. Vegas could EASILY lose with that logo if Army files a complaint. 

 

[WavePunter]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

We've seen in the past that broad strokes are all you need for infringement.  Take these two interlocking "SC" logos:

 

                                 

 

 

These two are different in all the details - the accent colors, the points where they interlock, one is block letters, square ends and hard corners where the other is fluid with serifs.  Yet the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's administrative tribunal ruled in 2008 that South Carolina could not trademark its logo because of the similarities to Southern California's logo.  A decision which was later upheld by the courts.

 

All I'm saying is that sometimes all you need for infringement is a big-picture similarity.  Gold ancient helmet on black shield just may be enough to cause headaches for the NHL club.

oh, I agree.. I'm not arguing what legal ground they actually have to stand on.. I'm simply saying that, in all the details, these two logos are very different.. Different enough that there would be no reasonable confusion between the two..

[Gothamite]

I think our standard on these boards as to what that term means is rather skewed.   We're used to picking out all the distinctions and details, whereas the average person really doesn't see them. 

[WavePunter]

7 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

I think our standard on these boards as to what that term means is rather skewed.   We're used to picking out all the distinctions and details, whereas the average person really doesn't see them. 

Again, I don't disagree, but the average person doesn't have a CCSLC member showing them logos in a setting that might suggest the logos belong to the same team.. A simple fix would be removing the shield or adding the tertiary red, etc, but in real world application, an average person would not be confused.. They may not know what one or both are, but they wouldn't conflate the two

[The_Admiral]

2 hours ago, swilson160 said:

 

"On the next Arrested Development..."

 

But he still had some unanswered questions, so he did a little detective work.

- T-Bone, did you burn down the Nassau Coliseum?
- Oh, most definitely.

[Gothamite]

17 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

Again, I don't disagree, but the average person doesn't have a CCSLC member showing them logos in a setting that might suggest the logos belong to the same team.. A simple fix would be removing the shield or adding the tertiary red, etc, but in real world application, an average person would not be confused.. They may not know what one or both are, but they wouldn't conflate the two

 

Yes, if Vegas changed its logo enough to pass it could pass. But as we've seen, different accent colors don't seem to make any difference. 

 

Keep in mind that there aren't a whole lot of instances where the South Carolina and USC logos would be presented in the fashion you suggest. And those that are seem equally plausible for Army/Vegas: on merchandise, online identifiers on ESPN.com, etc.  

 

If those two "SC" logos weren't distinctive enough for the courts, I'm not sure how Vegas could possibly be seen as sufficiently distinctive from Army. 

[IceCap]

19 minutes ago, WavePunter said:

Again, I don't disagree, but the average person doesn't have a CCSLC member showing them logos in a setting that might suggest the logos belong to the same team.. A simple fix would be removing the shield or adding the tertiary red, etc, but in real world application, an average person would not be confused.. They may not know what one or both are, but they wouldn't conflate the two

When the Blue Jays changed to their current logo my mom said "I'm glad they went back to the old logo. The logo they were using looked too much like the Seahawks' logo."

 

That's the level of knowledge you have to expect with people who don't follow this stuff as closely as we do.

[Cosmic]

I think @Gothamite is the one who says, "If you start with someone else's idea, it'll never be your own." Even ignoring the unconfirmed, behind-the-scenes stuff, we know that Foley has been set on black and gold and the Something Knights for a long time. He wanted the Golden Knight parachute team at the unveiling. His West Point roots get brought up constantly. It seems pretty clear to me that he wanted to piggyback onto the Army identity as much as he could get away with, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on something like the barbute. I don't think that just happened to be his favorite kind of knight helmet

[WavePunter]

43 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

 

Yes, if Vegas changed its logo enough to pass it could pass. But as we've seen, different accent colors don't seem to make any difference. 

 

Keep in mind that there aren't a whole lot of instances where the South Carolina and USC logos would be presented in the fashion you suggest. And those that are seem equally plausible for Army/Vegas: on merchandise, online identifiers on ESPN.com, etc.  

 

If those two "SC" logos weren't distinctive enough for the courts, I'm not sure how Vegas could possibly be seen as sufficiently distinctive from Army. 

Those two SC logos compete for similar shelf space, as well as potentially competing against each other in actual competition.. Again, I see your point, and precedent would suggest Foley is treading on thin ice (or maybe just cold water at this point), but it all comes down to the opinions of those who ultimately make the decision (i guess judges if it goes that far).. My point is just that I think they reach a little too far at times.. The SC case being a good example.. The University of South Carolina existed before the state of California did, and interlocking SC logos are present on South Carolina athletic uniforms and sweaters as early as 1900, so for the court to make that decision is just something I don't agree with..  I'm all for protecting IP, but entities have to be reasonable.. There are only so many ways to depict nicknames.. And even fewer ways to depict initials/monograms.. I think people are just getting too carried away with trying to trademark EVERYTHING, including things they did not create.. People are trying to get rights on ubiquitous phrases, common color combinations, even nicknames they adopted after other teams, etc.. And (more than) half the time, it's not truly to "protect" their intellectual property, it's to monopolize something that is (or likely will become) popular to try to make a buck.. 

[kroywen]

1 hour ago, Cosmic said:

I think @Gothamite is the one who says, "If you start with someone else's idea, it'll never be your own." Even ignoring the unconfirmed, behind-the-scenes stuff, we know that Foley has been set on black and gold and the Something Knights for a long time. He wanted the Golden Knight parachute team at the unveiling. His West Point roots get brought up constantly. It seems pretty clear to me that he wanted to piggyback onto the Army identity as much as he could get away with, so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on something like the barbute. I don't think that just happened to be his favorite kind of knight helmet

This.

 

The reality is, Foley openly tried to emulate West Point. He wanted his team to have a West Point theme. He would've named his team the Black Knights if he could have.

 

The fact that he's using West Point's colors, the name "[Insert Adjective Here] Knights," and Army-themed slogans/ad campaigns is not some mere coincidence. It's at the heart and soul of this identity. So when a knight's helmet that's strangely reminiscent of West Point's logo shows up, is it a coincidence? Absolutely not - no moreso than anything else in this awful, derivative identity.

 

Foley has basically taken West Point's identity, repackaged it with as few changes as possible to (try to) skate by the Army's IP lawyers, and is now using it for his own private enterprise making money for himself. That's copyright infringement by any reasonable definition, I'd say.

[The_Admiral]

McCarthy has talked about how there needs to be an NHL Properties department that centrally manages branding for the league's teams: you know, someone to say "no, Tampa Bay Lightning, you can't wear that, you look just like the Maple Leafs" or "no, Tampa Bay Lightning, you can't wear that either, you look just like the L.A. Kings." In this case, without even scratching the surface of infringing on the college and the Army, they'd say "no, Vegas team, you can't wear uniforms inspired by West Point because the Panthers already have uniforms that are sort of inspired by West Point, and, not just that, your division rival Anaheim Ducks also have uniforms that are even more inspired by West Point than the Panthers' are, and also, the Kings also wear black and silver with a shield and have the name of a chess piece." This really is the branding equivalent of Sideshow Bob and the rakes.