the Supreme Bowl party then...
Posted on 01/31/2014 9:11:37 AM PST by Doogle
Super Bowl XLVIII's hometown has a rude guest.
The sports world is converging on East Rutherford (pop. 8,978) for Sunday's game between the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks, and all the town wanted to do was have a little block party for locals not rich or lucky enough to have tickets.
The NFL can't stop the party, but they did bar East Rutherford from using the phrase "Super Bowl" in any description of the humble event, set to take place Sunday afternoon in the shadow of the town's most famous building, MetLife Stadium.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Well, I’ve used trademarks zillions of times in formal documentation and all I’ve ever done per guidance is add a footnote that e.g. “Teflon is a registered trademark of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company.” duPont probably prefers that over using the generic PTFE.
Now, an event like “Super Bowl” is different I guess in that you really can’t use the term willy nilly even with a clarification.
Bottom line, I really couldn’t give a crap about the “Big Game” - it’s about as interesting and overblown as the SOTU (TM).
slaughter house....
What was the intended audience for the documentation? What was the purpose of the documentation? Usage matters in these things. If you’re in the news business you can use trademarked stuff as part of stories with no problem at all. If you’re writing instructions for how to do something acknowledging the trademarks is more than enough. But these kind of public parties are functionally advertising, things get much tighter when your wanting to use somebody else’s trademark to advertise your thing, because you’re trying to profit off their trademark at that point, and that’s when you and they need to come to an agreement.
The use of the name Super Bowl to describe the championship of pro football predates the official adoption of the name for what was originally the NFL AFL Championship Game. Of course that was before you were born:-)
For many years “win a free trip to the Super Bowl” promotions were everywhere both nationally and in local ads. These promos had no connection to the NFL. This whole “Big Game” nonsense came down the pike later. Maybe when you were a teenager. Once the Super Bowl hit huge is when the NFL started throwing their weight around.
the Supreme Bowl party then...
The name was trademarked in 1969, and no the name doesn’t predate the merger, though it didn’t become official until the 3rd Super Bowl (which kind of funny).
They probably did have connection to the league, or the league just didn’t notice. It wasn’t as huge a deal then, it took until the late 70s for it to become an EVENT. Until the NFL was huge it didn’t have need to throw its weight around because there wasn’t as much reason for people to use their trademark.
There’s nothing new or unique about this, you must protect your trademark or you lose it as I showed in the previous post. And the more valuable it is the more you have to fight for it. And there are few trademarks in this world as valuable as the ones the NFL has.
Me, too! The Super Bowl is the Super Bowl. Just like Christmas is Christmas — not The Winter Holiday.
A stench is wafting from the direction of Big Football.
Product specifications, user manuals, technical literature.
very good
Yeah that’s all non-advertising primarily going to people that have already bought your product, so you just acknowledge and move on, all covered by fair use. There’s a fuzzy ground around those “works with” lists on product packaging, it would seem to be advertising (external to the package) but seems to generally be considered user doc and fair use.
I guess your point is that I’m a jerk for saying that companies have a right and should fight to keep their trademarks.
I think you're a jerk misguided for statements the government should be infringing on 11 year old cupcake makers and implying we need nannygov to baby us to the 'nth degree - because what if someone got sick.
Thank you for the clarification.
Listened once again to a panel talking about how raising the min wage to $10 will have very minimal affects of the job market. In other words, go ahead and raise it as it won’t cause any harm.
The dumb basta*ds, sitting around the table, don’t quite understand what this whole issue is about. Why does the gov’t need to involve themselves with min wages? In fact, why isn’t this a state thing.
My son one summer when he was like 8 years old had a knack for winning stuffed animals from those machines. He had amassed like 50 of these animals. People would funnel in the coins just to watch him, and he’d keep the animals.
One day he took them in a box down to the local grocery store and sold them for like 2 and 3$ He sold them out in no time. He had made $100.
About the same time a postal worker was moonlighting selling carmel corn. He had some permit to do so. He set up right next to where my son was.
Anyway, you know the story. Nobody bothered my son until like the third time he was out there, then this postal worker calls the police on him...and they basically told my 8 year old that he couldn’t sell the animals.
Was in Chicago last weekend, and amazed at all the beggars on the street. Do they require a permit to be a beggar? My son was selling some stuffed animals without a permit. What if he simply “begging”, and you get a stuffed animal in return.
Same with the cupcake girl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.