Quote:
Originally posted by KSig RC
Yeah . . . boring day at the office, so I actually spent some time researching this (since that's, well, my job). It turns out you're only partially correct on the history involved here -
-According to everything I've found, this is the very first time that A&M has had to file any sort of restraining order or injunction against a team - a cursory glance at the US Federal Courts' PACER listing shows exactly 1 instance of A&M as the plaintiff in a civil suit against ANYONE - in 2006, against the Seattle Seahawks. Note this is an incomplete list, however, it's the only electronic database available from the federal courts.
-According to an A&M official, while they've never sued another team, they've sent letters to the Bears, Bills, and the Miller Brewing Company asking them to stop and threatening legal action - the teams stopped on their own (cite ).
-Also, A&M first filed the TM in 1990 (and renewed in 1996) - their claim is that the trademark should belong to them based on common law. Trademarks are indeed protected, even when not filed or registered, by common law; this is an issue b/c the Seahawks have been using the term since the mid-80s, to refer to crowds at the Kingdome.
OK - so what's my point? It's simple - there is actually zero review available on whether or not A&M's trademark has proper upkeep or is valid, and they have actually never won any court cases (that I can find) regarding this trademark. That makes concerns over generic status not only valid, but I would say pretty credible, considering the 20+ years of someone else using the mark (and multiple instances of use in other locations).
But luckily, it doesn't matter what you or I understand, as these concerns would all be determined by an actual finder of fact (in this case, a jury), or by an out-of-court settlement . . . although it looks like the 'Hawks want to rumble on this one. I would imagine it's been profitable enough for both parties that the court battle may be worth it . . .
ETA: My real point here is that this is a VERY interesting case, on many levels - considerably more interesting than most p/tm work you'll find. I kind of hope it doesn't settle, as I'd love to see it play out.
|
Nice post, seriously. None of the info that I have received was in writing, so it was hard to remember everything that was told to me. I have some family members (attorneys) that are very close with those that represent both UT and A&M, so I think they had some idea about what was going on. I should have referred to settlements, rather than cases, as there are obviously are not any recorded. I think I read in Sports Illustrated or ESPN that they had gone through cases concerning legal matters with other institutions. I wonder why they did not file until 1990 for a trademark, when they have been using, and founded the term, since 1920. There is a long story beind the origins of the term, so I can't imagine anyone else claiming that they thought it up.
The fact that Seattle has been using the term since the 1980's makes the case all the more interesting.