NFL, Titans Oppose Trademark of Roughnecks XFL Logo

[SportsLogos.Net News 616]

NFL, Titans Oppose Trademark of Roughnecks XFL Logo

January 8, 2021 - 22:40 PM

The National Football League and the Tennessee Titans have filed an opposition against the XFL over their logo for the Houston Roughnecks on the grounds that it’s too similar to the old Houston Oilers logo. Yes, you’re right, the Houston (Tennessee) Oilers logo was replaced more than 20 years ago

Read More...

[gimmick 104]

The NFL and the Titans don't even use that logo anymore.

Whether they legally own it or not, this just seems petty to me.

Let the Houston Roughnecks use their logo - the Oilers name and logo is a Houston thing anyway. 

[dont care 6,929]

22 minutes ago, gimmick said:

The NFL and the Titans don't even use that logo anymore.

Whether they legally own it or not, this just seems petty to me.

Let the Houston Roughnecks use their logo - the Oilers name and logo is a Houston thing anyway. 

They use it for all kinds of throwback gear still. That’s the issue

[gimmick 104]

Understood, but it still seems petty to me.

Anyone can see the difference between the Oilers and the Roughnecks logo.

Legally, can the NFL and the Titans challenge it?  Yes, but it's just an unnecessary waste of time and resources, IMO.

[Sec19Row53 4,073]

12 minutes ago, gimmick said:

Understood, but it still seems petty to me.

Anyone can see the difference between the Oilers and the Roughnecks logo.

Legally, can the NFL and the Titans challenge it?  Yes, but it's just an unnecessary waste of time and resources, IMO.

No. It is entirely necessary.  If you don't defend your trademark you run the risk of losing them. The NFL should have done this when it was released.

[QCS 2,828]

Not necessarily, trademark law can get pretty complicated. Basically, the NFL is challenging this because if they don't, then the Oilers mark becomes weaker. If they let this Houston-related oil derrick logo slide, then they open themselves up to other copycats. Because the NFL still sells Houston Oilers gear with the classic mark, they need to keep the trademark protected and the Roughnecks logo is just too close for comfort for them.

[BBTV 20,981]

Yeah - I don't see any reason to hate on the NFL for this.  Seems perfectly reasonable.

[McCall 1,459]

Yeah, the NFL/Titans have every right and reason to protect their trademark. And while it may be very obvious to us around here and any other logo fanatic that they are different logos and different teams, it may not be to non-logo obsessed football fans or even casual fans, who don't really focus on the aesthetics of sports, but rather the game itself , which is the entire reason for trademark protection, to avoid confusing other logos with your brand and, thus, preventing other organizations/proprietors from creating "look alikes" and passing their products off as yours.

 

In respect to the logo itself, wouldn't it be almost more prudent for the XFL to simply drop/change the logo? I mean, they're not even playing right now and won't be for another year if everything goes as planned. It's new ownership. Why deal with the hassle of something that doesn't have a lot of brand equity built into it? Yes, they were one of if not the best team last year, but for only a handful of games which is their entire existence. I don't know the cost analysis of going through with a change as opposed to legal costs to keep it, but it just seems to me, as a non-expert, that it's not really worth it to challenge at this point in their organizations small history and unknown future.

[MJWalker45 6,036]

2 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

No. It is entirely necessary.  If you don't defend your trademark you run the risk of losing them. The NFL should have done this when it was released.

They did. It's just officially been disputed due to how the trademark people work these.

[_DietDrPepper_ 4,376]

So does this mean the XFL is still selling merchandise with this logo on it? I thought that XFL was over with. 

[Ark 2,882]

The only similarity is the fact that it's an oil derrick.  The Rough necks logo has a huge emphasis on the H which makes the oil derrick almost a secondary part of the logo, and it has a star on top.

 

I have absolutely no sympathy for the Titans. The Texans should be the Houston Oilers.

[Sec19Row53 4,073]

9 minutes ago, Ark said:

The only similarity is the fact that it's an oil derrick.  The Rough necks logo has a huge emphasis on the H which makes the oil derrick almost a secondary part of the logo, and it has a star on top.

 

I have absolutely no sympathy for the Titans. The Texans should be the Houston Oilers.

Your second statement has no bearing on the case at hand. In fact, it casts a shadow on the objectivity of your first statement. If this were court proceedings, your objection would be overruled. 

[neo_prankster 3,432]

52 minutes ago, _DietDrPepper_ said:

So does this mean the XFL is still selling merchandise with this logo on it? I thought that XFL was over with. 

 

The Rock bought the XFL and is trying to get it back up and running for 2022.

[BBTV 20,981]

1 hour ago, Ark said:

The only similarity is the fact that it's an oil derrick.  The Rough necks logo has a huge emphasis on the H which makes the oil derrick almost a secondary part of the logo, and it has a star on top.

 

I have absolutely no sympathy for the Titans. The Texans should be the Houston Oilers.

 

Right!  An oil derrick used as a mark for a professional football team in Houston.  It's an open and shut case, regardless of if they modified it enough to force an H in there.

[DNAsports 6,210]

1 hour ago, Ark said:

The only similarity is the fact that it's an oil derrick.  The Rough necks logo has a huge emphasis on the H which makes the oil derrick almost a secondary part of the logo, and it has a star on top.

 

I have absolutely no sympathy for the Titans. The Texans should be the Houston Oilers.

[mjd77 1,564]

4 hours ago, MJWalker45 said:

They did. It's just officially been disputed due to how the trademark people work these.

 

Thanks for the clarification...I was kind of wondering too why we hadn't heard about this until now.  Right when the XFL logos were released I was thinking to myself the NFL might have a problem with the Houston logo.

[4_tattoos 1,514]

Seems like all of this could have been avoided had the Roughnecks ditched the oil derrick logo altogether and gone with their secondary instead

 

[BBTV 20,981]

That looks like every generic logo that everyone's ever done, just swap the hat for whatever makes sense.

 

Also not sure I'd make a logo that's clearly representative of a race unless the logo is supposed to be a specific person.  

[batman1211 35]

5 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said:

Your second statement has no bearing on the case at hand. In fact, it casts a shadow on the objectivity of your first statement. If this were court proceedings, your objection would be overruled. 

Well, first, this isn't a court case. This is a sports logo forum. Second, the obvious opinion stated in Ark's second statement doesn't change the fact of Ark's first statement. Nobody is going to attempt to submit Ark's comment on this Chris Creamer's Sports Logo Community as evidence into any legal hearing. IMHO, I think that others should be allowed to say what they think about logos here...even if it isn't admissible into a US court of law.

 

Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress  others input and thoughts on this forum? I'm not saying that is what was done by Sec19Row53? I'm just asking.

[Sec19Row53 4,073]

2 minutes ago, batman1211 said:

Well, first, this isn't a court case. This is a sports logo forum. Second, the obvious opinion stated in Ark's second statement doesn't change the fact of Ark's first statement. Nobody is going to attempt to submit Ark's comment on this Chris Creamer's Sports Logo Community as evidence into any legal hearing. IMHO, I think that others should be allowed to say what they think about logos here...even if it isn't admissible into a US court of law.

 

Why is it that some people feel the need to suppress  others input and thoughts on this forum? I'm not saying that is what was done by Sec19Row53? I'm just asking.

Suppressing? No. Pointing out why an argument is invalid (IMO, obviously)? Yes