St.Louis using Rams name in the CFL

[Gothamite]

18 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

there is a team called the "Lions" in both leagues, and nobody complains about that.  So there logically should be no problem with a CFL team called the "Colts" or the "Rams"

 

That's not how logic works. 

 

First of all, Canada is a separate country.  Detroit is not in British Columbia. 

 

Second, those names date back to a time when those two leagues were small, regional affairs.  It is certainly possible that only a very few in each market was even aware of the existence of the other. 

 

Finally, neither name was chosen specifically to reference the history and legacy of the other.  Which is precisely why a new team would today want to be the "St. Louis Rams".

[leopard88]

1 minute ago, Gothamite said:

Finally, neither name was chosen specifically to reference the history and legacy of the other.  Which is precisely why a new team would today want to be the "St. Louis Rams".

 

. . . and precisely why Jim Speros named his team the Colts (well, CFL Colts, but close enough . . .)

[Gothamite]

Exactly.  And that was rightfully shot down. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, Gothamite said:

Exactly.  And that was rightfully shot down. 

 

That's not how "rightfully" works.

 

[Gothamite]

Sure it is.  The NFL had every right to protect their trademark, and the CFL team had no legal right to infringe upon the NFL's marks.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

11 minutes ago, Gothamite said:

Sure it is.  The NFL had every right to protect their trademark, and the CFL team had no legal right to infringe upon the NFL's marks.

 

As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the main question in trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion, the chance that the public will think that the new user is somehow connected to the older user.  This is determined, among other factors, by the similarity of the marks.

When one considers that every single person in Baltimore knew that the NFL team had moved away several years before and that the new CFL team was not part of the NFL, and when one considers also that the CFL team's logo did not remotely resemble that of the NFL team, one must conclude there was absolutely no likelihood of confusion, despite the fact that both entities offer the same product (pro football).  No member of the public would think that the CFL team was affilliated with the NFL team.

So there was no legitimate basis for that injunction.  It was a troubling expression of deference on the part of a supposedly independent judiciary to a huge private entity, an act which serves as a measure of the dangerously outsized influence that the NFL has in our society.

[Ben in LA]

St. Louis Goats

St. Louis Lambs

 

...or just call them the freaking Stallions or Gunners already.

[leopard88]

It would have been interesting to see how the battle would have ended.  The injunction obtained by the NFL was a preliminary injunction and, to my knowledge, there was never a final trial on the merits.  My understanding/belief is that Jim Speros didn't have the financial resources to fight that battle.

[Gothamite]

23 minutes ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

As I understand it (not being a lawyer), the main question in trademark infringement is the likelihood of confusion, the chance that the public will think that the new user is somehow connected to the older user. 

 

IANAL either, and would appreciate clarification from anyone who is, but there was absolutely a potential for confusion in the minds of casual fans.  They took the name, they took the colors.  And if the CSL sold anything at all with the words "Baltimore Colts" on it, that potential was multiplied exponentially. 

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 minute ago, leopard88 said:

It would have been interesting to see how the battle would have ended.  The injunction obtained by the NFL was a preliminary injunction and, to my knowledge, there was never a final trial on the merits.  My understanding/belief is that Jim Speros didn't have the financial resources to fight that battle.

 

Right.  And that is how large entities use the courts to dominate smaller entities.  They never have to defend their position on its merits; they need only wait for the smaller entity to capitulate because it cannot afford the fight.

I suppose that we cannot blame large companies for trying this tactic if it works.  All blame goes to the courts for facilitating being used in this manner.

[leopard88]

I AM a lawyer and you're both right about the primary issue being the likelihood of confusion regarding the origins of the goods or services.

 

In this case, you could make a reasonable argument in both directions.  Consumer surveys are often used in trademark cases to determine whether actual confusion exists.  In Baltimore, you probably couldn't find a sole who didn't know the difference.  In a broader market, you could very easily find consumers who thought there was a connection between the teams.

 

In considering the likelihood of confusion, courts will also take into consideration the intent of the alleged infringer in adopting the mark.  This is where the CFL Colts' argument was at it weakest, because Speros clearly wanted to ride the coattails of the NFL team.

[Gothamite]

Thanks!

[fumbler]

I want to know why the op started this thread.

[Tygers09]

On 8/3/2016 at 10:31 PM, fumbler said:

I want to know why the op started this thread.

Op? I was just asking a question hoping to get a legal explanation, others blew it way out of proportion.

[sc49erfan15]

23 hours ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

When one considers that every single person in Baltimore knew that the NFL team had moved away several years before and that the new CFL team was not part of the NFL, and when one considers also that the CFL team's logo did not remotely resemble that of the NFL team, one must conclude there was absolutely no likelihood of confusion, despite the fact that both entities offer the same product (pro football).  No member of the public would think that the CFL team was affilliated with the NFL team.

 

I think you're woefully underestimating how many people pay exactly zero (or at least minuscule) attention to sports.

 

I worked at a Lids in New Jersey and had many, many people confuse New York Yankees and New York Mets hats. If people in the New York metropolitan area can confuse the Yankees and Mets (nevermind that the Yankees are probably the most recognizable team in North American professional sports), then people would have absolutely confused the Baltimore NFL Colts and the Baltimore CFL Colts.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

1 hour ago, sc49erfan15 said:

 

I think you're woefully underestimating how many people pay exactly zero (or at least minuscule) attention to sports.

 

I worked at a Lids in New Jersey and had many, many people confuse New York Yankees and New York Mets hats. If people in the New York metropolitan area can confuse the Yankees and Mets (nevermind that the Yankees are probably the most recognizable team in North American professional sports), then people would have absolutely confused the Baltimore NFL Colts and the Baltimore CFL Colts.

 

I don't doubt that people who know nothing about sports don't know the difference between a Yankee hat and a Met hat.  I had aunts like that.

But the move of the Colts was not a mere sports story; it was a moment of cultural upheaval that left a mark in the population.  Like the move of the Dodgers or the move of the Browns, it is something that everyone in those areas knows about even if they don't pay any attention to sports.

Also, I get the argument that a t-shirt that said only the text "BALTIMORE CFL COLTS" could be confused for an item from the departed NFL team.  But the logos looked nothing alike; and I am pretty sure the logo was on all promotional items.  It doesn't take a knowledge of sports to see that a horsey-head is different from a U-shaped horseshoe.

[leopard88]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

 

I don't doubt that people who know nothing about sports don't know the difference between a Yankee hat and a Met hat.  I had aunts like that.

But the move of the Colts was not a mere sports story; it was a moment of cultural upheaval that left a mark in the population.  Like the move of the Dodgers or the move of the Browns, it is something that everyone in those areas knows about even if they don't pay any attention to sports.

Also, I get the argument that a t-shirt that said only the text "BALTIMORE CFL COLTS" could be confused for an item from the departed NFL team.  But the logos looked nothing alike; and I am pretty sure the logo was on all promotional items.  It doesn't take a knowledge of sports to see that a horsey-head is different from a U-shaped horseshoe.

 

I agree with you on the first bolded part.  I was there in 1983 and it was a very big deal.

 

I have to disagree with you on the second part.  These two logos look very different . . . and they represent the same team.

   

 

 

[Geoff]

On 8/3/2016 at 3:17 AM, Tygers09 said:

This was more of a legal question, not whether it would happen or not.

 

"Would" implies a hypothetical. "Could" is the word you're looking for.

 

And I'm assuming the NFL or the LA Rams are probably still holding on to the trademarks for all things St. Louis Rams so, no, it couldn't work.

[fumbler]

On 8/2/2016 at 5:10 PM, Tygers09 said:

Can St.Louis use the Rams team name in the CFL? Or would the big bad NFL take legal action against any team using the Rams name like they against Baltimore using the Colts?  Also I'm assuming the franchise can't use the navy & old gold team colors, not to mention any logos resembling what the Ram NFL franchise used, right?

 

The way i read the op was that you were asking if a side could use a nickname currently linked with the city if the CFL decided to allow a team there.

 

 

16 hours ago, Tygers09 said:

Op? I was just asking a question hoping to get a legal explanation, others blew it way out of proportion.

 

That's not what you asked originally now is it?

[leopard88]

In a weird quirk of timing, look what I just saw on Facebook --