Just one more example of the NFL owners being greedy buttholes

[Just Jack]

I didn't know that!!!

 

Well someone, very deservedly so, lost a lot of money on that!!

Here's an article about it...

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

[Steely Dan]

Here's an article about it...

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

 

Refunds on those pre-orders musta been a biotch to take care of, seeing as how many people were on the bandwagon then.

[Just Jack]

Here's an article about it...

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d8...mp;confirm=true

Oh, the other things you find when doing a simple Google search...

 

http://www.amazon.com/England-Patriots-19-...s/dp/B0013HT0FU

[UB Bull]

From what I understand, the brothers do have copyright rights on who dat, so hopefully the NFL loses, one issue is the color scheme though, I think the league owns the color scheme rights, so any shirts printed without NFL approval would have to modify their color scheme possibly, not sure how that works. I do know that the league has NO CLAIM on the fleur-di-lis, whatsoever.

 

It's all a matter of context. You're correct about the color scheme business.

 

Trademark issues are not blind to context. While the phrase "Who Dat" might be in the public domain, it is possible to trademark its use in the context of the New Orleans Saints. If someone is selling shirts in Saints colors outside the stadium, well I'd say the NFL has a case.

 

Here's an analogy: If your last name is McDonald, and you want to open a restaurant named "McDonald's", then you will probably be sued. You can argue that your family name existed well before the fast-food restaurant McDonald's opened, but it doesn't matter. McDonald's has the name trademarked in the restaurant business. You would be free to open an electronics store and call it McDonald's if you want, as long as there is no allusion of an association to the popular restaurant.

 

So, it doesn't matter that "Who Dat" may have existed before the Saints - the NFL has it with regard to the Saints.

 

Same goes for the Fleur-de-Lis. The NFL/Saints own the trademark with regard to the Saints, and any product that uses the fleur-de-lis in a context that alludes to the football team (in a judge's opinion) is probably infringing.

[billsfreak]

It's all a matter of context. You're correct about the color scheme business.

 

Trademark issues are not blind to context. While the phrase "Who Dat" might be in the public domain, it is possible to trademark its use in the context of the New Orleans Saints. If someone is selling shirts in Saints colors outside the stadium, well I'd say the NFL has a case.

 

Here's an analogy: If your last name is McDonald, and you want to open a restaurant named "McDonald's", then you will probably be sued. You can argue that your family name existed well before the fast-food restaurant McDonald's opened, but it doesn't matter. McDonald's has the name trademarked in the restaurant business. You would be free to open an electronics store and call it McDonald's if you want, as long as there is no allusion of an association to the popular restaurant.

 

So, it doesn't matter that "Who Dat" may have existed before the Saints - the NFL has it with regard to the Saints.

 

Same goes for the Fleur-de-Lis. The NFL/Saints own the trademark with regard to the Saints, and any product that uses the fleur-de-lis in a context that alludes to the football team (in a judge's opinion) is probably infringing.

How can someone wear a U.S. Flag to Ralph Wilson Stadium, don't the Bills have that color scheme trademarked in their stadium? (Just being the Devil's Advocate.)

[Just Jack]

Here's an analogy: If your last name is McDonald, and you want to open a restaurant named "McDonald's", then you will probably be sued. You can argue that your family name existed well before the fast-food restaurant McDonald's opened, but it doesn't matter. McDonald's has the name trademarked in the restaurant business. You would be free to open an electronics store and call it McDonald's if you want, as long as there is no allusion of an association to the popular restaurant.

I saw that somewhere in my travels, a store called McDonalds. I can't remember where or what it was, but I remember thinking to myself it was interesting that they were allowed to use the name.

[UB Bull]

How can someone wear a U.S. Flag to Ralph Wilson Stadium, don't the Bills have that color scheme trademarked in their stadium? (Just being the Devil's Advocate.)

 

again, think about context.

 

The American flag is obviously not trying to capitalize on the Bills, so there is no problem.

 

If someone wanted to sell a shirt with the words "Let's go Buffalo" on it in the Bills colors, then it's obvious that he is trying to capitalize on the Bills. The NFL would have a case.

[Steely Dan]

Linkage

 

On September 19, 1990 John L. McClain applied to register the mark "MC CLAIM" on the Principal Register for what were subsequently identified by amendment as "legal and legal consultation services." Applicant based the application on his assertion that he had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.

 

 

Following publication of the mark, a timely notice of opposition was filed on December 23, 1993 by McDonald's Corporation. As grounds for opposition opposer asserted that applicant adopted the mark with the intention of trading upon opposer's fame and its marks; that opposer operates, licenses and services a worldwide system of restaurants; that opposer licenses a wide variety of products and services under its famous marks; that opposer has developed, through widespread and extensive promotion and use, a family of marks distinguished by "Mc" and "Mac" formatives, including fifty-one specified registered trademarks and service marks; that the public readily associates applicant's mark, particularly as used in the form shown below,

 

 

 

McDonald's well-known brand has driven the company's 50 years of successful revenue and earnings growth around the globe.

 

As fast-food sales continue to gain traction in billion-dollar international markets including Brazil, Russia, China and Germany, McDonald's enforces its trademark rights in many serious legal cases. Some cases may seem trivial while others are even laughable. Each challenge, however, poses high-stake consequences for the company's brand-name, image and reputation in the minds of millions of consumers worldwide.

 

Read more at Suite101: Micky Dee Sues Copycats: McDonald's Trademark & Patent Lawsuits Serve Up No Jokes http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/art...s#ixzz0e6xcldPK

 

Israel's Supreme Court decided in favour of McDonald's. The court ruled that Ariel McDonald's name and statements in the magazine article were freely made and that the world's largest fast-food restaurant chain had a right to use the magazine interview in response to Ariel's comments in the Burger King commercial. And although the player has a right to use his name, it is not an absolute right particularly where one is gaining economic benefit at the expense of a business competitor.

 

___________________________________

 

Copycats need to meticulously study what they plan to say and do if it pertains to the Golden Arches. In 1990, McDonald's sued an unemployed postman and gardener in London, England for distributing leaflets alleging that the company served unhealthy food, was cruel to animals and bad for the environment, and exploited workers. Why would a US$23-billion-a-year giant sue 2 low-income workers for libel, amassing some 50,000 pages in court documents related to the case? Of prime importance is the claim in the leaflets that McDonald's type of food (i.e., high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt) is linked with breast and bowel cancer as well as heart disease. McDonald's simply cannot afford to have its offerings associated with cancer in the court of public opinion.

 

IIRC, McDonald's lost that lawsuit.

 

___________________________________

 

McDonald's brand faced a more anatomical association when an Australian restaurant featured topless wenches serving under the name McTits. McDonald's deep legal resources immediately fired off a cease-and-desist order.

 

 

________________________________

 

McDonald's is just as tenacious in defending its trademarks in cyberspace. Micky Dee's legal machine successfully shut down the website www.mcmurder.com, citing unauthorized and misleading use of McDonald's trademarks including the Golden Arches logo, the McDonald's mark and the Ronald McDonald character. Although mcmurder.com purports to be a humorous site, McDonald's successfully argued that an unsuspecting consumer wouldn't be able to distinguish the humour in the website's false allegations that McDonald's is systematically murdering people in Los Angeles and New York City on behalf of the United Nations. Big Mac also cited unproven claims of harassment and abuse against the company. The website has been forced to predominantly feature McDonald's legal cease-and-desist order on its home page. That order asserts that while America's First Amendment affords the right to free speech, it doesn't protect the gratuitous and deceptive use of trademarks as mcmurder.com does.

 

________________________________

 

McDonald's has even gone after the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary when it included the term McJob, defined as low-paying and dead-end work. No less than McDonald's CEO Jim Cantalupo wrote an open letter to Merriam-Webster, arguing that the term is an inaccurate description of restaurant employment and insults the 12 million workers in the restaurant industry. McDonald's legal team advised Merriam-Webster of impending legal action, pointing out that McJOBS is the trademarked name for McDonald's training program aimed at mentally and physically challenged people.

 

______________________________

 

Link

 

McDonald's has lost the 8-year lawsuit against Malaysian curry restaurant, McCurry. McDonald's argued that the "Mc" prefix constituted trademark infringement, the owner of McCurry insisted the "Mc" was abbreviation for "Malaysian Chicken" Curry.

[Steely Dan]

I was wrong McDonald's won this case;

 

Link

 

In 1990, McDonald's took environmental campaigners Helen Steel and Dave Morris to court after they distributed leaflets entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's?" on the streets of London. The high-profile trial, which came to be known as the McLibel Case, lasted seven and a half years, the longest in English legal history.

An anti-McDonald’s leafletting campaign in front of the McDonald’s restaurant in Leicester Square, London, during the European Social Forum season, 2004-10-16.

 

Though a High Court judge eventually ruled in favour of McDonald's, it was something of a Pyrrhic victory. The extended legal battle was a PR disaster, with every aspect of the company's working practices being scrutinised and the media presenting the case as a David and Goliath battle. Additionally, the damages received were negligible compared to the company's estimated £10 million legal costs because the court ruled in favour of a number of the defendants' claims, including that McDonald's exploited children in its advertising, was anti-trade union and indirectly exploited and caused suffering to animals. McDonald's was awarded £60,000 damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 by the Court of Appeal. Steel and Morris announced they had no intention of ever paying, and the company later confirmed it would not be pursuing the money. Steel and Morris went on to challenge UK libel laws in the European Court of Human Rights, claiming that the lack of access to legal aid and the heavy burden of proof that lay with them, as the defendants' requirement to prove their claims under UK law was a breach of the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. The court ruled in their favour[5] and the UK Government was forced to introduce legislation to change defamation laws.

 

_______________________________

 

McCoffee (US)

 

In 1994, McDonald's successfully forced Elizabeth McCaughey of the San Francisco Bay Area to change the trading name of her coffee shop McCoffee, which had operated under that name for 17 years. "This is the moment I surrendered the little 'c' to corporate America," said Elizabeth McCaughey, who had named it as an adaptation of her surname

 

_______________________________

 

McChina Wok Away (UK)

 

In 2001, McDonald's lost a nine-year legal action against Frank Yuen, owner of McChina Wok Away, a small chain of Chinese takeaway outlets in London. Justice David Neuberger ruled the McChina name would not cause any confusion among customers and that McDonald's had no right to the prefix Mc.[9]

 

_______________________________

 

McMunchies (UK)

 

In 1996, McDonald's forced Scottish sandwich shop owner Mary Blair of Fenny Stratford, Buckinghamshire to drop McMunchies as her trading name. Mrs. Blair did not sell burgers or chips. She said she chose the name because she liked the word munchies and wanted the cafe to have a Scottish feel. The cafe's sign reflected this, featuring a Scottish thistle and a St Andrew's flag. But in a statement to Mrs. Blair's solicitors, McDonald's said if someone used the Mc prefix, even unintentionally, they were using something that does not belong to them.

 

__________________________________

 

McAllan (Denmark)

 

In 1996, McDonald's lost a legal battle at the Danish Supreme Court to force Allan Pedersen, a hotdog vendor, to drop his shop name McAllan.[11] Pedersen had previously visited Scotland on whiskey-tasting tours. He named his business after his favorite brand of whiskey, MacAllan's, after contacting the distillery to see if they would object. They did not, but McDonald's did. However, the court ruled customers could tell the difference between a one-man vendor and a multi-national chain and ordered McDonald's to pay 40,000 kroner ($6,900) in court costs. The verdict cannot be appealed.

 

___________________________________

 

South African trademark law

 

Apartheid politics had prevented earlier expansion into South Africa, but as the apartheid regime came to an end in the early 1990s, McDonald's decided to expand there. The company had already recognized South Africa as a potentially significant market and had registered its name as a trademark there in 1968.

 

Under South African law, trademarks cease to be the property of a company if they are not used for a certain amount of time. McDonald's had renewed the 1968 registration several times, but missed a renewal deadline. The registration expired and McDonald’s discovered two fast food restaurants in South Africa were trading under the name MacDonalds. Moreover, a businessman had applied to register the McDonald’s name.

 

Multiple lawsuits were filed. The fast food chain was stunned when the court ruled it had lost the rights to its world-famous name in South Africa. However, the company eventually won on appeal.

 

____________________________________

 

The real Ronald McDonald (US)

 

The company waged an unsuccessful 26-year legal action against McDonald's Family Restaurant which was opened by a man legally named Ronald McDonald in Fairbury, Illinois in 1956.[16] Mr. McDonald ultimately continued to use his name on his restaurant, despite objections by the franchise.

 

 

Link

 

 

Devo sues McDonalds

 

Posted by David Pescovitz, June 29, 2008 9:33 AM | permalink

 

Devo is suing McDonald's over New Wave Nigel, a toy that the fast food restaurant gives away with some Happy Meals. New Wave Nigel is part of an American Idol-related line of freebies based on various genres of music. From AAP:

 

"This New Wave Nigel doll that they've created is just a complete Devo rip-off and the red hat is exactly the red hat that I designed, and it's copyrighted and trademarked.

 

"They didn't ask us anything. Plus, we don't like McDonald's, and we don't like American Idol, so we're doubly offended."

[Steely Dan]

Continued from the Wiki link above ^^^^^

 

Cases brought against McDonald's

 

[edit] H.R. Pufnstuf / McDonaldland

 

In 1973, Sid and Marty Krofft, the creators of H.R. Pufnstuf , successfully sued McDonald's, arguing that the entire McDonaldland premise was essentially a ripoff of their television show. In specific, the Kroffts claimed that the character Mayor McCheese was a direct copy of their character, "H.R. Pufnstuf" (being a mayor himself). McDonald's initially was ordered to pay $50,000. The case was later remanded as to damages, and McDonald's was ordered to pay the Kroffts more than $1 million.

 

McDonaldland itself, as it was depicted in the commercials, was a magical place where plants, foods, and inanimate objects were living, speaking characters. In addition to being the home to Ronald and the other core characters, McDonaldland boasted "Thick shake volcanoes", anthropomorphized "Apple pie trees", "The Hamburger Patch" (where McDonald's hamburgers grew out of the ground like plants), "Filet-O-Fish Lake", and many other fanciful features based around various McDonald's menu items. In the commercials, the various beings are played by puppets or costumed performers, very similar to the popular H.R. Pufnstuf program.

 

McDonald's had originally hoped the Kroffts would agree to license their characters for commercial promotions. When they declined, McDonaldland was created, purposely based on the H.R. Pufnstuf show in an attempt to duplicate the appeal.

 

After the lawsuit, the concept of the "magical place" was all but phased out of the commercials, as were many of the original characters. Those that remained would be Ronald, Grimace, The Hamburglar, and the Fry Kids.

 

________________________________________________

 

McSleep (Quality Inns International)

 

In 1988 Quality Inns was planning to open a new chain of economy hotels under the name "McSleep." After McDonald's demanded that Quality Inns not use the name because it infringed, the hotel company filed a suit in federal court seeking a declaratory judgment that "McSleep" did not infringe. McDonald's counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Eventually, McDonald's prevailed. The court's opinion noted that the prefix "Mc" added to a generic word has acquired secondary meaning, so that in the eyes of the public it means McDonalds, and therefore the name "McSleep" would infringe on McDonald's trademarks. Quality Inns Int'l v. McDonald's Corp. 695 F. Supp. 198 (D. Md. 1988).PDF

 

_______________________________________________

 

Viz top tips (UK)

 

In 1996, British adult comic Viz accused McDonald's of plagiarising the name and format of its longstanding Top Tips feature, in which readers offer sarcastic tips. McDonald's had created an advertising campaign of the same name, which showcased the Top Tips (and then suggested the money-saving alternative - going to McDonald's). Some of the similarities were almost word-for-word:

 

"Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to Oxfam. They will wash and iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – Viz Top Tip, published May 1989.

 

"Save a fortune on laundry bills. Give your dirty shirts to a second-hand shop. They will wash and iron them, and then you can buy them back for 50p." – McDonalds advert, 1996

 

The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, which was donated to the charity appeal Comic Relief. However, many Viz readers believed that the comic had given permission for their use, leading to Top Tips submissions such as: "Geordie magazine editors. Continue paying your mortgage and buying expensive train sets ... by simply licensing the Top Tips concept to a multinational burger corporation."[18]

 

___________________________________________

 

Beef french fries

 

Lawsuits were brought against the McDonald's Corporation for including beef in its french fries despite claims that those french fries were vegetarian (Block vs. McDonald's Corp., Sharma vs. McDonald's Corp., Bansal v. McDonald's Corp., Zimmerman v. McDonald's Corp.) PDF was brought against McDonald's for claiming that its french fries were vegetarian in the early 1990s, when in fact beef flavoring was added to the fries during the production phase. The case revolved around a 1990 McDonald’s press release stating that the company's french fries will be cooked in 100% vegetable oil and a 1993 letter to a customer that claims their french fries are vegetarian [1]. The lawsuits ended in 2002 when McDonald's announced it would issue another apology and pay 10 million dollars to vegetarians and religious groups. Subsequent oversight by the courts was required to ensure that the money that was paid by McDonald's: "to use the funds for programs serving the interests of people following vegetarian dietary practices in the broadest sense." There was some controversy in this ruling, as it benefited non-vegetarian groups such as Muslims, who cannot eat McDonald's fries as they are non-halal, and research institutions that research vegetarian diets but do not benefit vegetarians. In 2005, the appeal filed by vegetarians against the list of recipients in this case was denied, and the recipients of the 10 million dollars chosen by McDonald's was upheld.

 

Further ingredient related lawsuits have been brought against McDonald's in 2006, as McDonald's had placed its french fries on its website as gluten-free. After they changed the recipe, it is claimed that children suffered severe intestinal damage as a result of McDonald's unpublicized changes to its recipe. More recently, McDonald's has included a more complete ingredient list for its french fries. Over 20 lawsuits have been brought against McDonald's regarding this issue, and the McDonald's Corporation has attempted to consolidate these lawsuits.

 

Beef flavoring? I never knew that and if somebody had told me Ida thunk they was bonkers!!

 

Strip search prank call scam

 

Mount Washington, Kentucky incident

The final call was made to a McDonald's restaurant in Mount Washington, Kentucky on April 9, 2004. According to assistant manager Donna Summers, the caller identified himself as a policeman, 'Officer Scott', who described Louise Ogborn, a female employee he suspected of stealing a purse. After the caller demanded that the employee be searched at the store, or taken to jail, the employee was brought into an office and ordered to remove her clothes, which Summers took to her car. Another assistant manager, Kim Dockery[1], was present during this time. After an hour Summers told the caller that she was required at the counter, and the caller then told her to bring in her fiance, Walter Nix.[2]

 

Nix arrived and took over from Summers, following the caller's directions for the next 2 hours. He removed the apron the employee had covered herself with and ordered her to dance and perform jumping jacks. He also ordered her to sit on his lap and kiss him, and when she refused he slapped her buttocks. The caller also spoke to the employee, demanding that she do as she was told. During this time the employee said that "I was scared for my life". After the employee had been in the office for 2½ hours, she was ordered to perform oral sex on Nix. Summers had returned to the office periodically, and during these visits the employee was instructed to cover herself up by the caller.[2]

 

Nix was then told he could leave, and that Summers had to find someone to replace him. After Nix left, he called a friend and told him "I have done something terribly bad".[2] The entire incident was captured on a surveillance camera in the office. Summers watched the tape later that night, and according to her attorney, called off the engagement.[2]

 

Summers called in Thomas Simms, a store maintenance man who had stopped at the restaurant for dessert. Simms refused to go along with the caller's demands. It was at this point that Summers, who was not aware of Nix's earlier actions, became suspicious and decided to call the store manager, whom the caller had claimed to have on another phone line. Speaking with her boss, Summers then discovered that the store manager had been napping and had not spoken to any police officers, and that the call had been a hoax. The caller quickly hung up. A quick-thinking employee dialed *69 before another call could ring in, to get the telephone number of the caller's phone. Summers, now hysterical, began apologizing and released the employee (by then shivering and wrapped in an emergency blanket) after 3½ hours of false arrest and then called the real police, who arrested Nix for sexual assault and began an investigation to find the caller.

 

The Mount Washington Police Department was only a quarter mile away.[2]

 

Although their initial suspicion was that the call had originated from a pay phone near the location of the restaurant, where the perpetrator could visually monitor police activity at the police station and the restaurant, the police later determined that the call had come from a supermarket pay phone in Panama City, Florida.

[JPS]

Even more confusing is that the Bengals say "Who Dey"??. Who owns that? The Bengals started in 1937 or so?

 

Forget all the McDonald's talk. They have more lawyers than burgers. If someone is selling an NFL Saints Fluer de lis with ANY phrase on it, it patent/trademark infringement. I'd rather work for the NFL on that suit.

[CarolinaBill]

It's all a matter of context. You're correct about the color scheme business.

 

Trademark issues are not blind to context. While the phrase "Who Dat" might be in the public domain, it is possible to trademark its use in the context of the New Orleans Saints. If someone is selling shirts in Saints colors outside the stadium, well I'd say the NFL has a case.

 

Here's an analogy: If your last name is McDonald, and you want to open a restaurant named "McDonald's", then you will probably be sued. You can argue that your family name existed well before the fast-food restaurant McDonald's opened, but it doesn't matter. McDonald's has the name trademarked in the restaurant business. You would be free to open an electronics store and call it McDonald's if you want, as long as there is no allusion of an association to the popular restaurant.

 

So, it doesn't matter that "Who Dat" may have existed before the Saints - the NFL has it with regard to the Saints.

Same goes for the Fleur-de-Lis. The NFL/Saints own the trademark with regard to the Saints, and any product that uses the fleur-de-lis in a context that alludes to the football team (in a judge's opinion) is probably infringing.

they don't have a claim on the fleur-di-lis, except in that EXACT STYLE, WITH SAINTS COLORS, the symbol predates this country, and i am sure there was no NFL in the 1700's. The whole thing stinks, why not just let them do it this once, have't those people been through enough.

[CarolinaBill]

Even more confusing is that the Bengals say "Who Dey"??. Who owns that? The Bengals started in 1937 or so?

 

Forget all the McDonald's talk. They have more lawyers than burgers. If someone is selling an NFL Saints Fluer de lis with ANY phrase on it, it patent/trademark infringement. I'd rather work for the NFL on that suit.

if the seller can provide proof that their fleur de lis design predates the saints its not a violation, it's already been established that the NFL doesn't own "who dat", and they don't own the fleur de lis itself. It's a case of the NFL being greedy A-holes, and they don't have as much of a case as they think they have.

[Mr. WEO]

if the seller can provide proof that their fleur de lis design predates the saints its not a violation, it's already been established that the NFL doesn't own "who dat", and they don't own the fleur de lis itself. It's a case of the NFL being greedy A-holes, and they don't have as much of a case as they think they have.

If you and the rest of your NO whiners could unwind your panties for a bit, you would see that the NFL is not claiming ownership of the fleur or "who dat".

 

From the AP article:

 

The league said Friday it's not trying to exclude all uses of Who Dat and the fleur-de-lis logo -- just when either is used in combination with other Saints trademarks, like their fleur-de-lis logo and uniform designs.

 

Later Friday, NFL vice president Jeffery Miller told Vitter in a letter that the league is narrowly targeting Who Dat products "only when those products contain or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints.

 

Now do you get it? You can sell all the "who dat" crap you want. You just can't put it on a black and gold t-shirt with a fleur de lis--which is clearly the logo and colors of the NFL Saints.

[CarolinaBill]

If you and the rest of your NO whiners could unwind your panties for a bit, you would see that the NFL is not claiming ownership of the fleur or "who dat".

 

From the AP article:

 

 

 

Now do you get it? You can sell all the "who dat" crap you want. You just can't put it on a black and gold t-shirt with a fleur de lis--which is clearly the logo and colors of the NFL Saints.

What I was saying is that the Fleur De Lis does not belong to the NFL

[Mr. WEO]

What I was saying is that the Fleur De Lis does not belong to the NFL

They are not claiming that it does! Only if it is combined with the colors of the Saints and sold as such.

 

Like this one:

 

 

 

link

[CarolinaBill]

They are not claiming that it does! Only if it is combined with the colors of the Saints and sold as such.

 

Like this one:

 

 

 

link

link didnt work

[Mr. WEO]

link didnt work

The NFL is preventing the link from working.