How much should Texas A&M charge the Seahawks so they can renew the ability to use the 12th man

[fordman84]

I honestly don't care about who owns the trademark. If it is important to you that A&M be in the right, have fun with that. I honestly don't care.

What is important to me is that people who don't know how trademarks work stop pretending like their team is in the right.

 

[BHF]

In order to assume that you have to believe that A&M wants to punish SEA or force them to give them large amounts of money. The law says A&M has to defend their trademark, doesn't say they have to ask for a huge amount of money.

Just because someone doesn't go to court doesn't mean it is because they think they can't win.

If A&M was negotiating from a position with any significant advantage, they would have pressed the issue. A win in court would render their trademark virtually bullet proof for decades. They weren't, though, and just about every legal analysis of the case has stated that they weren't likely to win a case against an out of region defendant. A&M did what they had to do. Seattle found a win/win situation, and everyone is happy.

aTm has waaaay too much at risk to press this issue further.

 

[BoBlake]

Why should they allow the Seahawks to make millions off of their trademark without proper compensation?

They aren't making any money off this trademark. None.

 

[fordman84]

If A&M was negotiating from a position with any significant advantage, they would have pressed the issue. A win in court would render their trademark virtually bullet proof for decades. They weren't, though, and just about every legal analysis of the case has stated that they weren't likely to win a case against an out of region defendant. A&M did what they had to do. Seattle found a win/win situation, and everyone is happy.

aTm has waaaay too much at risk to press this issue further.

That's very cynical of you. What proof do you have that A&M wants to extract as much as possible from Seattle?

 

[fordman84]

They aren't making any money off this trademark. None.

So they have paid $130k to A&M because they think it's fun?

 

[BoBlake]

So they have paid $130k to A&M because they think it's fun?

Please tell me where the Seahawks are currently using the trademarked term 12th Man. Then show me how much money they are making from it.

 

[WizardHawk]

Why should they allow the Seahawks to make millions off of their trademark without proper compensation?

They aren't making millions off of it. They are not allowed to sell any merchandise with that term on it. The jersey's that simply have the #12 on it would be ok for them to sell even if they did not have this license agreement with TAMU so tell me how they are profiting millions of dollars from it.

Likely? Did they have to make another "massive" balloon payment when they reupped in 2011?

Your drama llama stuff is pretty funny though. "honorable institution lost credibility". LMAO. They took the steps to trademark something so they could make money, and then did what the law required to maintain that revenue stream. You just don't like it, so you are trying to shame A&M.

I believe it was a 10 year deal that expires in 2016 so the balloon payment has indeed only been given once and the 5k/year since. It is likely they would have to have another massive balloon payment of some undetermined amount if both sides reach some sort of agreement.

Personally if I was the Seahawks I wouldn't enter into it and simply call themselves the 12's and be done with it. Keep making their millions off of it as they already are and just change the wording in the stadium.

The reason they don't is the principle of it. They used this term before TAMU made their claim and by god the Seahawks are sticking to their guns for their right to use it. TAMU may have been able to bully most other teams into backing away from it, but that shit doesn't fly up here.

So they have paid $130k to A&M because they think it's fun?

Wouldn't expect a TAMU puppet to understand standing up for principle. But no, Seattle hasn't made a dime off of the term 12th man, it's in the agreement. For someone who is telling others they know nothing of trademark law, you'd think you would have taken the time to know the basics of this arrangement.

 

[BHF]

That's very cynical of you. What proof do you have that A&M wants to extract as much as possible from Seattle?

Oh, I think any money gained is a bonus. I'm not sure you're understanding where I'm coming from.
We both agree that A&M is obligated to defend their trademark. What I'm saying is that if anyone in the future were to challenge A&M's trademark, a federal court ruling in their favor is going to go a hell of a lot farther than an out of court settlement where Seattle didn't have to admit any infringement. Hell, it would probably prevent anyone from even contemplating a challenge. Conversely, if A&M were to have that court ruling go against them, they are out millions in revenue in coming years. They recognize that there is a lot of risk involved, and a good chance they will outright lose the case.

 

[gowazzu02]

whnat a cool a unique way to kick seattle while their down. Cannot believe a GB fan started this thread... shocked I am

 

[WizardHawk]

Anyone else catching anything good today? Had a big blue tail on the line for a minute, but not much else biting today.

Damn off season.

 

[The Derski]

Maybe they should sell the fans worthless pieces of paper and call them shares to pay for it.

you'd probably be the first one in line if Seattle did that.

 

[The Derski]

whnat a cool a unique way to kick seattle while their down. Cannot believe a GB fan started this thread... shocked I am

You're seriously offended by this thread? Pull yourself together.

 

[fordman84]

Please tell me where the Seahawks are currently using the trademarked term 12th Man. Then show me how much money they are making from it.

You made a statement and now want me to defend it? How bizarre.

If they aren't making any money off it, then explain why they have paid $130k.

 

[fordman84]

They aren't making millions off of it. They are not allowed to sell any merchandise with that term on it. The jersey's that simply have the #12 on it would be ok for them to sell even if they did not have this license agreement with TAMU so tell me how they are profiting millions of dollars from it.


I believe it was a 10 year deal that expires in 2016 so the balloon payment has indeed only been given once and the 5k/year since. It is likely they would have to have another massive balloon payment of some undetermined amount if both sides reach some sort of agreement.

Personally if I was the Seahawks I wouldn't enter into it and simply call themselves the 12's and be done with it. Keep making their millions off of it as they already are and just change the wording in the stadium.

The reason they don't is the principle of it. They used this term before TAMU made their claim and by god the Seahawks are sticking to their guns for their right to use it. TAMU may have been able to bully most other teams into backing away from it, but that shit doesn't fly up here.


Wouldn't expect a TAMU puppet to understand standing up for principle. But no, Seattle hasn't made a dime off of the term 12th man, it's in the agreement. For someone who is telling others they know nothing of trademark law, you'd think you would have taken the time to know the basics of this arrangement.

It was a $100k up front on a 5 year deal at $5k per, and signed in 2006. It was re-upped in 2011 without another initial payment just another 5 years at 5k per. Your last comment is funny in regards to you're making it obvious youyourself have no idea what the actual agreement is. I am fully aware of what SEA is allowed to say and do, and stick by my claim that rich people don't get that way by pissing away $130k for no reason. There is a monetary gain for the Hawks.

 

[fordman84]

Oh, I think any money gained is a bonus. I'm not sure you're understanding where I'm coming from.
We both agree that A&M is obligated to defend their trademark. What I'm saying is that if anyone in the future were to challenge A&M's trademark, a federal court ruling in their favor is going to go a hell of a lot farther than an out of court settlement where Seattle didn't have to admit any infringement. Hell, it would probably prevent anyone from even contemplating a challenge. Conversely, if A&M were to have that court ruling go against them, they are out millions in revenue in coming years. They recognize that there is a lot of risk involved, and a good chance they will outright lose the case.

link or any backing for that?

 

[BoBlake]

You made a statement and now want me to defend it? How bizarre.

If they aren't making any money off it, then explain why they have paid $130k.

Ok fordman, let's play your little game.

1) It is a fact that the Seahawks, in 2006 and years prior, used the term 12th Man in marketing, probably on promotional items, and probably on merchandise and made some money during that time.

2) The 100k that they spent in 2006 was from what I've read, intended to pay for the legal costs of TAMU to bring the lawsuit and to make the 'problem' go away from a legal liability standpoint. You know that makes a lot of sense for a company valued in hundreds of millions of dollars, with untold instances of using a trademarked term, to spend a PITTANCE to settle out of court (without admitting guilt). You know this. I know you do.

3) The 5k per year since then is also a pittance, and it's worth the cost just to have the OPTION to use the term again sometime in the future, and probably a lot of other little reasons to have the term be around (like not having to redo the bronze plaques and displays around Century link field that reference 12th man).



Now, back to my post, the one you chose to challenge.

Today, the Seahawks are making essentially ZERO dollars on the trademarked term 12th Man. They don't use it in any advertising, they don't use it on promotional materials, they don't print it on any merchandise, they don't put the term in any programs or handouts, they don't reference it anywhere that the Seahawks control. In return, they have to 'encourage' all TV and radio broadcasters to NOT use the term, they have to pay 5k per year to TAMU, they have to police any 3rd party company/etc that the Seahawks do business with to also not use the term.

Now, you either agree with me that the Seahawks don't make any money on this term (anymore at least) as it's completely disappeared from anything Seahawks related for years (except for signs in the stadium, which generate zero value), or you need to show me how they are bringing in income, cause I can't seem to figure it out...and I've given you a reason why they'd continue to spend 5k/ year to have the license.

 

[BoBlake]

There is a monetary gain for the Hawks.

link or any backing for that?

 

[WizardHawk]

It was a $100k up front on a 5 year deal at $5k per, and signed in 2006. It was re-upped in 2011 without another initial payment just another 5 years at 5k per. Your last comment is funny in regards to you're making it obvious youyourself have no idea what the actual agreement is. I am fully aware of what SEA is allowed to say and do, and stick by my claim that rich people don't get that way by pissing away $130k for no reason. There is a monetary gain for the Hawks.

If you are an expert on this deal and at least intimated more than once Seattle is making a profit off their license agreement, then please share with the class exactly what in the agreement gives them anything they actually can profit from.

Right.

Being an aggie you wouldn't understand something being done for principle.

Hell, look up texas a&m trademark bullying and you will find several forums with aggies saying they will no longer support the school because of their same bullshit over aggies, aggieland, and other stupid shit they won't let any business or even student body organization use without some fucking contract with the school. This is an example of a school going entirely off the rails.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Lawyers making a killing out a phrase.

 

[BHF]

link or any backing for that?

Sorry, you're right. Plaintiffs with a lot to gain from a legal decision that they are confident in winning always back down for a pennies on the dollar legal settlement.