Sign in to follow this  
CubsFanBudMan

Washington Nationals name dispute

Recommended Posts

What a thread!

Anyway I still say they shouldve gone with Greys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except now we open up the Greys v. Grays can of worms.

In the U.S., the preferred spelling is Grays. I don't know if that was born out of independence or bad spelling, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want them to be the Grays

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A group claims that MLB doesn't own the name "Washington Nationals":

AP story

And depending on when they got trademark rights, they just might.

One thing that is in play when it comes to trademarks is use. MLB hadn't used "Washington Nationals" for anything from 1971 until probably about July 2004. In such cases, any trademark right they may have had to the name, registered or otherwise, would've expired because MLB failed to use it in a commercial manner.

If that group, or any other, got the trademark rights and actually used them during that period and is still using them, its possible that MLB's going to have to settle.

That's a good point. MLB might have abandoned the name.

I wouldn't mind "Grays" either. And it was "Grays" with an "a":

home_image.jpg

If anyone hasn't read Beyond the Shadow of the Senators, I'd highly recommend it. Marvelous stuff, and it's what made me turn to Grays as my own personal preferred nickname for the team when they were kicking ideas around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about that. I'd call it more of a generic athletic script than an homage to the Dodgers.

I think I read that the Dodgers were the first team to have a script with a tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want them to be the Grays

You realize of course, that if the team went with "Grays" (historically appropriate, and spelled 'Merican style), they'd be likely to pull a Blue Jays/Graphite Jays switcheroo and start playing in all blue uniforms, just to screw with people... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about that.  I'd call it more of a generic athletic script than an homage to the Dodgers.

I think I read that the Dodgers were the first team to have a script with a tail.

When I read you, I went to check my beloved Marc Okkonen's "Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century".

Results?

The Dodgers used by first time the script with tail in 1938. But the very first team to use a script with tail was the Chicago Cubs in their 1931 alt road unis.

The first team to use a script with tail in the home uniform was the 1934 Philadelphia Phillies.

The Detroit Tigers were the first ever team to use a script (w/o tail) in their jerseys in 1930.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I thought a bit about all the naming rights stuff...

What will happen if that group wins the lawsuit against MLB and forces MLB to change the nickname of the Washington ballclub? -----> No more future Nats' vintage jerseys?

If it happens, at eBay some guys will win big bucks selling the current Nats' jerseys... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What will happen if that group wins the lawsuit against MLB and forces MLB to change the nickname of the Washington ballclub? -----> No more future Nats' vintage jerseys?

Odds are if that happened (and that's a big, BIG "if"), MLB would undoubtedly negotiate for the rights, at least on a temporary basis. At this point they'd have no real choice - they can't afford a PR fiasco such as changing the name, only to have it possibly changed again by whoever buys the club.

My guess is that MLB will throw lawyer after lawyer on this to tie it up until those suing run out of cash and give up the ghost. If the case has merit MLB'll try then to settle for the complaintant's costs and maybe a token amount. If it doesn't, or if he/they don't have deep enough pockets, the complaintant will fold fairly quickly.

On the other hand, if they're stubborn and feel they can win (like I was in my copyright case a year ago), they might spend every buck they have, and every one they could borrow, to defend their case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odds are if that happened (and that's a big, BIG "if"), MLB would undoubtedly negotiate for the rights, at least on a temporary basis. At this point they'd have no real choice - they can't afford a PR fiasco such as changing the name, only to have it possibly changed again by whoever buys the club.

I think you've got it there.

They can fight it until the new owner comes in, and then the new owner will decide if s/he wants to bother with it or rebrand the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bygone Sports the company that has the registration of the Washington Nationals mark, has their merchandise at:

www.washingtonnationalsapparel.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can fight it until the new owner comes in, and then the new owner will decide if s/he wants to bother with it or rebrand the team.

can all of the pro "washington senators" people give it a rest? they've had tramendous success this year and the city of washington has really grown on the team and its identity. they're going to be the nationals for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can fight it until the new owner comes in, and then the new owner will decide if s/he wants to bother with it or rebrand the team.

can all of the pro "washington senators" people give it a rest? they've had tramendous success this year and the city of washington has really grown on the team and its identity. they're going to be the nationals for a long time.

Besides, why would anyone want to go back to a hideous name and look? It would be like ....... the Brewers going back to the ball-in-glove logo? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They can fight it until the new owner comes in, and then the new owner will decide if s/he wants to bother with it or rebrand the team.

can all of the pro "washington senators" people give it a rest? they've had tramendous success this year and the city of washington has really grown on the team and its identity. they're going to be the nationals for a long time.

Besides, why would anyone want to go back to a hideous name and look? It would be like ....... the Brewers going back to the ball-in-glove logo? :P

:huh: How is this hideous?

al_1960_washington.gif

I'm fine with Nationals myself but there wasn't anything wrong with this kit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's nothing wrong with the old senators set, but imo the current nationals name and uniforms are better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're making unsupported assertions of opinion - no, they aren't. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bygone Sports the company that has the registration of the Washington Nationals mark, has their merchandise at:

www.washingtonnationalsapparel.com

Hey, I like alots this lettering!!!

nationals_tshirt.jpg

The Mad Mac, I also think you are right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's even more interesting is that Eleanor Holmes Norton is not even on the House subcommittee that has overall control over the District of Columbia. The DC Government controls day to day operations however.

Share this post


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