Jump to content

NFL, Titans Oppose Trademark of Roughnecks XFL Logo


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

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

It is perfectly valid here. This is a sports logo forum. Ark thinks the two logos are nothing alike except for the oil derrick. I like hearing others people's thoughts on sports logos. Again, I'm not saying that you are trying to suppress (or invalidate) someone's opinion on a sports logo board. You did that. I just think that Ark's (or any others) sports logo opinion shouldn't be attempted to be invalidated. I don't know why there is such a need by some for that. Maybe it makes people feel better about themselves. Thank you Ark for expressing your sports logo opinion here. I feel that this is the correct place to do that. I enjoy reading them. I'm sorry that others need to attempt to invalidate that you or anyone else has an opinion....no matter how "obviously" others think that it should be made "invalid".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, the admiral said:

A Houston football team in blue and red with an oil derrick and a team name that suggests working in the oil industry, truly the Fake Razor & Diesel of spring football


I was gonna say the Renegade of Spring Football.

 


Guess what popular wrestler/homophobic douchebag WCW made him emulate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, batman1211 said:

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.

 

Please either cite some examples to support this accusation you're making, or retract it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BBTV said:

 

Please either cite some examples to support this accusation you're making, or retract it.

I made no accusation.

 

I said "I'm not saying that is what was done by Sec19Row53? I'm just asking." This was general question

 

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

The above is the quote that was the acknowledgement of it being done and that it was the intention by Sec19Row53. 

 

I think a legal argument of a statement being admissible in court is for a legal forum. I think that a sports logo forum is for sports logo opinions. I don't understand why someone's opinion here has to  hold up to legal standards. Ark felt that the two logos are not similar. IMHO, most people who come to a sports logo forum like to read what others think about about sports logos. There are many logo/designs opinions that may violate legal qualifications or just league rules. All I was asking is why is there a need for that.

 

Again I was making no accusations toward Sec19Row53. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, batman1211 said:

I made no accusation.

 

I said "I'm not saying that is what was done by Sec19Row53? I'm just asking." This was general question

 

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

The above is the quote that was the acknowledgement of it being done and that it was the intention by Sec19Row53. 

 

I think a legal argument of a statement being admissible in court is for a legal forum. I think that a sports logo forum is for sports logo opinions. I don't understand why someone's opinion here has to  hold up to legal standards. Ark felt that the two logos are not similar. IMHO, most people who come to a sports logo forum like to read what others think about about sports logos. There are many logo/designs opinions that may violate legal qualifications or just league rules. All I was asking is why is there a need for that.

 

Again I was making no accusations toward Sec19Row53. 

But you were. I pointed out how I saw that opinion. As discussion which you seem to want. I thought that there were clues in the original post that led it to be less than truthful. 

 

If you don't like how I did it, there isn't much I can do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 4_tattoos said:

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

 

Houston Roughnecks on Twitter: "Pick up some official Roughnecks gear from  our team shop! 🛒» https://t.co/4lCgSWQwuf… "

 

The outdated trend of turning a logo into a slug to give the notion of charging forward is pretty damn funny when it's just some guy's head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sec19Row53 said:

But you were. I pointed out how I saw that opinion. As discussion which you seem to want. I thought that there were clues in the original post that led it to be less than truthful. 

 

If you don't like how I did it, there isn't much I can do about it.

I agree with you. I have PM'ed you. I'll also gladly apologize publicly if any of my comments have seemed to be anything other that what I was saying. With your agreement, I will be glad to have any and/or all of these comments removed. This is exactly what I would rather not have on a sports logo forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I called this when the Roughnecks first revealed their logo and most folks that I was reaching.  To me, this is no surprise after the precident set in their non-stop harassment of the CFL Colts who were forced to change to the Stallions.  NFL will lay claim to anything not nailed down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

 

The outdated trend of turning a logo into a slug to give the notion of charging forward is pretty damn funny when it's just some guy's head

Exactly.  Was his head just lobbed off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, batman1211 said:

I made no accusation.

 

I said "I'm not saying that is what was done by Sec19Row53? I'm just asking." This was general question

 

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

The above is the quote that was the acknowledgement of it being done and that it was the intention by Sec19Row53. 

 

I think a legal argument of a statement being admissible in court is for a legal forum. I think that a sports logo forum is for sports logo opinions. I don't understand why someone's opinion here has to  hold up to legal standards. Ark felt that the two logos are not similar. IMHO, most people who come to a sports logo forum like to read what others think about about sports logos. There are many logo/designs opinions that may violate legal qualifications or just league rules. All I was asking is why is there a need for that.

 

Again I was making no accusations toward Sec19Row53. 

 

14 hours ago, batman1211 said:

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.

 

 

You said that "some people feel the need to suppress others[sic] input and thoughts on this forum".  So you're accusing some people of suppressing thoughts, even if not Sec19Row53.  Just curious where you've seen such suppression since you've apparently noticed it enough to comment on it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, batman1211 said:

I agree with you. I have PM'ed you. I'll also gladly apologize publicly if any of my comments have seemed to be anything other that what I was saying. With your agreement, I will be glad to have any and/or all of these comments removed. This is exactly what I would rather not have on a sports logo forum.

It's all good. Paraphrasing my response to you - we can disagree and discuss stuff. Anything anyone posts is alwasy 'in my opinion'. I have no problems with you or this whole discussion.


We're good!

 

As for the Roughnecks, the logo is (in my opinion 😂) clearly derived from, or meant to invoke, the Houston Oilers. As someone said upthread, the NFL opposed it all along, but this delay is just how that process normally works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, CrimsonBull9584 said:

So the NFL's argument is that football fans can't tell the difference between the logos of an NFL team that hasn't been around since 1998 and a new XFL team?

 

NFL doesn't respect their fans' intelligence do they?

Not all football fans are logo obsessed like us. I guarantee many would see a Roughnecks shirt with just the logo and think that it was an Oilers shirt. And if you told them it wasn't, they would say "close enough" or "what's the difference?". And THAT is why it is important to protect your brand and it's distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as an actual lawyer, I think the NFL has a very strong case in this instance.

 

The standard is whether there is likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product.  The Roughnecks logo checks a lot of boxes in that review.

 

1.  It is a logo for a football team.

2.  That team plays in Houston.

3.  The logo is, in simplest terms, a recolored version of the original Oilers logo with H overlay and a star on top.

4.  The recolored version is similar in the color to the logo used by the Oilers in the 60s and early 70s (the powder blue, silver and red era).

 

Since the NFL still uses the Oilers logo on merchandise and may use it on the field again if the one helmet rule is abolished, the league almost has no choice but to contest the registration of the Roughnecks logo.  Otherwise, its right to use the Oilers logo is at risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/9/2021 at 5:51 PM, 4_tattoos said:

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

 

Houston Roughnecks on Twitter: "Pick up some official Roughnecks gear from  our team shop! 🛒» https://t.co/4lCgSWQwuf… "

I didn't know Flying Elvis had a day job.Tough times all around!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, leopard88 said:

Speaking as an actual lawyer, I think the NFL has a very strong case in this instance.

 

The standard is whether there is likelihood of confusion as to the source of the product.  The Roughnecks logo checks a lot of boxes in that review.

 

1.  It is a logo for a football team.

2.  That team plays in Houston.

3.  The logo is, in simplest terms, a recolored version of the original Oilers logo with H overlay and a star on top.

4.  The recolored version is similar in the color to the logo used by the Oilers in the 60s and early 70s (the powder blue, silver and red era).

 

Since the NFL still uses the Oilers logo on merchandise and may use it on the field again if the one helmet rule is abolished, the league almost has no choice but to contest the registration of the Roughnecks logo.  Otherwise, its right to use the Oilers logo is at risk.

Which is why I wanna see the cost for the XFL to challenge/keep the logo vs the XFL coming up with something else. As I said before, they don't have a long history, very short in fact. They're currently not playing and, even though they plan on playing next year, that is still an uncertainty. I think they'd be better off just getting rid of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also doesn't help the XFL's cause that the former CEO of the league used to play for the Houston Oilers.  That makes it a little harder to argue that it was just a coincidence.

 

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.