Replies

and A&M said they have no plans to sue the Seahawks. I would imagine that they are allowing it to ride until after the Super Bowl at which point the Seahawks front office will probably remove their organization from its use voluntarily. I would doubt A&M would sue the fans, they are concerned about the marketing aspect such as the flag on the new stadium and any merchandise.

Further more what is different for A&M from UT suing the City of Fort Worth for using a logo similar to the burnt orange longhorn logo or Paul McCartney suing major restaurant chains from their wait staff singing Happy Birthday(which caused other organizations to stop as well). I would imagine that the A&M wouldn't even bother if it wasn't for some Alumni protesting. But it a trademark and should be defended to some level.

That's why this whole thing is so stupid. It's a civil matter, they have to serve Seattle with notice and demand.

Seattle front office types up a memo telling everybody in the organization to not use the term "12th man". They can use 12th player, 12th mvp, 12th guy on the bench, whatever.

They could still sell Jerseys with the number 12 on it.

Problem solved. Except for the ill will generated because of A&M's strongarm tactics. They would get alot more respect if, for instance they picked the Seahawks in the game, and then pulled their legal shenanigans after the SB.

Further more what is different for A&M from UT suing the City of Fort Worth for using a logo similar to the burnt orange longhorn logo or Paul McCartney suing major restaurant chains from their wait staff singing Happy Birthday(which caused other organizations to stop as well).

I don't know about the Texas situation, but A&M should have waited until after the superbowl. Their timing stinks and makes them look silly.

A trademark must be vigorously defended in order to remain valid which is why Paul McCartney defended his. A trademark holder cannot selectively defend the trademark or it will be vacated. As I said in an earlier post, that is why corporations have to go after mom and pop stores, churches, charities and high schools.

If a Coke didn't defend its trademark against the any churches or charities using it's trademark then it couldn't defend it against Pepsi either.

It is questionable if A&M has actually defended its trademark in this way.