Why is NFL Network using this Chargers bolt in its draft coverage?

[hawk36]

As a Chargers fan, no, no, a million times no.

The Raiders' shield + the Broncos' horse = that logo. Might as well add an Indian chief while we're at it. Might I add that those three are all division rivals?

As a Charger fan as well, yes, yes, a million times yes to a refined shield/horse/lightning logo. It's historic existing as long as the Raiders so not copying them at all. It was the logo I grew up with and loved. It's the original AFL Champion Chargers. Embrace history.

[andrewharrington]

For me, I wouldn't mind if the Chargers adopted a new horse/shield logo, but I guarantee you the team wouldn't go for it, and that the Raiders and the league wouldn't allow it to happen. The league usually won't even clear shield-based t-shirt designs for other teams.

[Gothamite]

Such as?

Besides, no such problem exists with the Chargers - the NFL sells a ton of shield-emblazoned San Diego merchandise. The Chargers don't seem to mind that too much.

[IceCap]

Well Al Davis did try to sue the Bucs because they to use a pirate-themed logo with crossed swords. I wouldn't put it past Ole' Skeletor to sue the Chargers if they went with a shield-based primary.

[Gothamite]

Yeah, but he obviously didn't win. And Davis is a moron.

I'd like to know which teams were prohibited from using a shield logo.

[hawk36]

You can buy, right now, official NFL Chargers' merchandise with the shield logo. Raiders can't stop it, it's been in place since 1960.

[andrewharrington]

I'm not talking about the throwback shield logo. They sell tons of merchandise with that on it, and will continue to do so. I'm talking about using a shield-based design across all teams for say, a sideline t-shirt or a fangear t-shirt. That kind of stuff very, very rarely gets through NFL legal, because it can't resemble the NFL shield, nor the Raiders' shield, nor the U.S. highway shield, etc., you get the idea. Likewise, NEW shield-based logos never get very far in the design process because A. The team doesn't want to get sued by the Raiders, B. The Raiders will sue any team using a shield or pirate imagery, and C. The league will always try to avoid infringing on one of its strongest visual brands.

For example, you'll most likely never see another team with a star-based design on its helmet, or an NY, C, or G design on its helmet. If the Chargers want to use a throwback logo with a shield in it, there's not really much the league can do to stop that, but NFL legal can crush a new logo if it thinks that it might infringe on another team's brand, especially one of its big moneymaker brands.

[Drakonius26]

Plus, if anything the Chargers could technically counter-sue and possibly win if Al Davis tried the legal approach to prevent the Chargers from using their shield-logo as their primary mark, since the Chargers used the shield logo before the Raiders ever had a shield logo. In 1963 a young assistant from San Diego, named Al Davis went north to California to coach the Raiders, and in his first year they used a variation of the shield-logo they proudly talk about today. Al Davis had tremendous respect and admiration for Sid Gillman, so it's very possible he adopted a shield-like logo for the Raiders to make them like what San Diego was back in the day, a proud, talented, ahead-of-the-curve football team.

[andrewharrington]

But at this point, it wouldn't be about who adopted it first. It would be about who owns it, and that would clearly be the Raiders, who have used it on their helmet, as their only logo, for almost 50 years. If you don't protect your trademark from the onset and your opponent uses it more aggressively than you do while you sit idly by for decades, you're not going to win a counter suit.

[Gothamite]

I'm not talking about the throwback shield logo. They sell tons of merchandise with that on it, and will continue to do so. I'm talking about using a shield-based design across all teams for say, a sideline t-shirt or a fangear t-shirt. That kind of stuff very, very rarely gets through NFL legal, because it can't resemble the NFL shield, nor the Raiders' shield, nor the U.S. highway shield, etc., you get the idea. Likewise, NEW shield-based logos never get very far in the design process because A. The team doesn't want to get sued by the Raiders, B. The Raiders will sue any team using a shield or pirate imagery, and C. The league will always try to avoid infringing on one of its strongest visual brands.

Do you have any evidence of that? Or is it instead attributable to the fact that shield-based designs aren't really fashionable in the United States (except in soccer, in part because they're not fashionable in the United States)?

Al Davis couldn't stop the Bucs from moving from a caballero to a much more pirate-y one. He made all sorts of complaining noises but neither he nor the NFL said "boo."

For example, you'll most likely never see another team with a star-based design on its helmet, or an NY, C, or G design on its helmet. If the Chargers want to use a throwback logo with a shield in it, there's not really much the league can do to stop that, but NFL legal can crush a new logo if it thinks that it might infringe on another team's brand, especially one of its big moneymaker brands.

True, you'll never see another team with an "NY" on it's helmet. Unless the League decides to add another team to New York.

But no stars at all? Seriously?

Sure, you won't see a solo star all by itself on a helmet. But stars can, and will continue to be, important design elements in other teams' logos.

In the same way, no team will be allowed to use the same shape shield in the same colors as either the Raiders or NFL. But there's more than one way to skin a pig, and I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that a shield logo like Arsenal's, for example, would be prohibited by the NFL.

[leopard88]

B. The Raiders will sue any team using a shield or pirate imagery.

In the same way, no team will be allowed to use the same shape shield in the same colors as either the Raiders or NFL. But there's more than one way to skin a pig, and I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that a shield logo like Arsenal's, for example, would be prohibited by the NFL.

I know this isn't a primary, but the Ravens have been using some variation of it since 1996 . . . and I don't remember hearing that they were sued by Al Davis (not that they weren't sued at all, but that's another story. )

[Gothamite]

Thank you - even better.

[IceCap]

Al Davis also tried to sue the Panthers for supposedly copying the Raiders' colour scheme. I think the NFL would be wise to tell Al to mind his own business any time he feels another NFL team "infringing" on his team's identity.

The Chargers going to some form of the horse/shield logo as the official primary wouldn't be terrible, as long as they kept it off the helmets. A jersey patch ala the Steelers and Jets could be cool though.

[andrewharrington]

I'm not talking about the throwback shield logo. They sell tons of merchandise with that on it, and will continue to do so. I'm talking about using a shield-based design across all teams for say, a sideline t-shirt or a fangear t-shirt. That kind of stuff very, very rarely gets through NFL legal, because it can't resemble the NFL shield, nor the Raiders' shield, nor the U.S. highway shield, etc., you get the idea. Likewise, NEW shield-based logos never get very far in the design process because A. The team doesn't want to get sued by the Raiders, B. The Raiders will sue any team using a shield or pirate imagery, and C. The league will always try to avoid infringing on one of its strongest visual brands.

Do you have any evidence of that? Or is it instead attributable to the fact that shield-based designs aren't really fashionable in the United States (except in soccer, in part because they're not fashionable in the United States)?

Al Davis couldn't stop the Bucs from moving from a caballero to a much more pirate-y one. He made all sorts of complaining noises but neither he nor the NFL said "boo."

For example, you'll most likely never see another team with a star-based design on its helmet, or an NY, C, or G design on its helmet. If the Chargers want to use a throwback logo with a shield in it, there's not really much the league can do to stop that, but NFL legal can crush a new logo if it thinks that it might infringe on another team's brand, especially one of its big moneymaker brands.

True, you'll never see another team with an "NY" on it's helmet. Unless the League decides to add another team to New York.

But no stars at all? Seriously?

Sure, you won't see a solo star all by itself on a helmet. But stars can, and will continue to be, important design elements in other teams' logos.

In the same way, no team will be allowed to use the same shape shield in the same colors as either the Raiders or NFL. But there's more than one way to skin a pig, and I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that a shield logo like Arsenal's, for example, would be prohibited by the NFL.

I'm simply talking from my experiences dealing with NFL legal. I don't know how else to put it. They simply won't let you do it in this day and age. Things might have been different in the late 1990s when the Ravens began using their shield, but I promise you that it wouldn't go through today, certainly not as a primary mark for merchandising or a mark that was to be used on a helmet. This logo is not the teams primary mark, which may be why it was let through. It's not used all that often and clearly the raven in profile is the face of the team. I wouldn't consider any of those other logos you've pointed out to be 'star-based' designs, either. They use stars as minor elements to allude to something secondary to the overall concept of the logo, in this case, the flags of the state or region/country the team represents. And the 'NY' comment was meant to say, you'll probably never see the Jets with just an 'NY' on their helmet as long as the Giants use it.