Mr. WEO Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 If true, that explains for me why the Houston Texans are the Texans and not the Oilers, why the Baltimore is no longer the Colts, etc..So f'ing dumb, if I was an Oiler fan, I would be pissed. I can't think of any other modern day NFL team that just died like the Oilers did. Then they trot them back out as the Oiler/Titans in Tennessee, give me a break. I think its safe to say Baltimore didn't go with the Baltimore Colts again because of the Indianapolis Colts, but if the rule exists, it does seem pointless. Really? You don't need a rule. The owner of the team, not the city, owns the name. When he moves the team, the name goes with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimace Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 (edited) Really? You don't need a rule. The owner of the team, not the city, owns the name. When he moves the team, the name goes with him. I know enough about trademarks and copyrights to know that I don't know anything about trademarks and copyrights. Having said that, if the Houston Oilers move to Tennessee, then change their name, does that prevent a new Houston team from using the same name 3 years later? Edited June 24, 2013 by Grimace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucethomas34 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Looks like vultures are circling the Rams. PTR How any team would need to be moved makes no sense, if another city wants a team they should create a new one...There are no NFL teams that lose money anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I know enough about trademarks and copyrights to know that I don't know anything about trademarks and copyrights. Having said that, if the Houston Oilers move to Tennessee, then change their name, does that prevent a new Houston team from using the same name 3 years later? Considering the fact that the Houston Oilers Inc still own the 'Houston Oilers' and the trademark is still 'live' then yes, that will prevent a new Houston team from using the same name 3 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Goodell Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 The NFL is committed to keeping the Rams in St. Louis while at the same time continue to explore the future possibilties for expansion in Los Angeles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 The Rams will be heading back- I firmly believe that. The Raiders might not be far behind. The Bills always get thrown on the potential movers list, but that is by people with no real grasp of the situation in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 LA and all of Southern California seems to be a place where people end up from somewhere else. Hell even the teams are from somewhere else most of the time...Lakers, Dodgers, Raiders... I suspect TV viewership may be just fine if they show the best game of the week. In the end it will be corporate dollars or lack of that will decide the Bills' and Buffalo's fate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 I know the NFL likes ratings but no team survives in LA, why go through this again? It isn't going to be supported well and will fold in maybe 10 years. So if the Rams were not to move back to Los Angeles, where else would they go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 So if the Rams were not to move back to Los Angeles, where else would they go? I heard Batavia, but I don't have a link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Really? You don't need a rule. The owner of the team, not the city, owns the name. When he moves the team, the name goes with him. Not anymore, it all changed when the Browns moved to Baltimore. But if the Rams do go back to LA, I could see the NFL letting them use Rams since that was what they were known as before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benderbender Posted June 24, 2013 Share Posted June 24, 2013 Sorry if I don't sit up and beg. If the Jaguars can stay in Jacksonville, the Rams have nothing to fear. Too much Toronto talk over the years have numbed me. Call me when there is a serious offer made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 24, 2013 Author Share Posted June 24, 2013 So if the Rams were not to move back to Los Angeles, where else would they go? `London, England was mentioned. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts