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

[fordman84]

I will keep telling you are wrong when you claim something was taken that didn't belong to us because that is factually incorrect. You can keep claiming otherwise, but that won't suddenly make it true. The facts clearly support my statements. You cannot deny that phrase was used by many schools before yours, and in the years after they adopted it. It wasn't copied from you if you didn't create it. Just a fact.

Did Seattle use the term "12th man"? Did A&M file suit? Did Seattle end up paying to use that term?


Tell me where I'm wrong that SEA tried to use something they didn't own.


The FACT is that it doesn't matter who used the term, the FACT is who owns the rights to it.

 

[fordman84]

I guess they did, as so far as "settling out of court" constitutes an agreement.

I'm mildly curious what Seattle chooses to do next. I'm hoping they just forget the 12th Man phrase entirely and leave Texas A&M to do whatever a mid-ranked school does.

If they choose to challenge the trademark, I'd be interested in that too, however.

If anyone wonders what it looks like when someones jimmies get rustled...


exhibit A

 

[BoBlake]

I think you are making way too much of a meal out of this.

The Seahawks give A&M a few thousands dollars for rights to the term 12th Man probably because they don't want to deal with annoyance lawsuits from A&M.

Ultimately it isn't worth their time to challenge A&M over copyright. They can still sell all sorts of stuff that references the 12th man even if it doesn't explicitly say 12th man.

Ultimately it annoys me that these sort of copyrights exist but I don't really care that much.

It's actually just so that Texas A&M can send "mystery shoppers" to Seattle and make sure their not infringing on the trademark. That's what it states in the legal agreement anyway.

 

[BoBlake]

If anyone wonders what it looks like when someones jimmies get rustled...


exhibit A

LOL....ok??

 

[fordman84]

I think you are making way too much of a meal out of this.

The Seahawks give A&M a few thousands dollars for rights to the term 12th Man probably because they don't want to deal with annoyance lawsuits from A&M.

Ultimately it isn't worth their time to challenge A&M over copyright. They can still sell all sorts of stuff that references the 12th man even if it doesn't explicitly say 12th man.

Ultimately it annoys me that these sort of copyrights exist but I don't really care that much.

That's your take on it. Or more realistically SEA knew they were wrong, but A&M knew there was little impact to themselves so they granted the rights at a low price.

A&M wasn't in the situation where they needed to "settle". So your take that Seattle just allowed A&M to charge them money is laughable.

 

[BoBlake]

That's your take on it. Or more realistically SEA knew they were wrong, but A&M knew there was little impact to themselves so they granted the rights at a low price.

LOL. I've posted links to the agreement itself already. Here is the relevant piece. The ownership of the trademark is indisputable. It is in fact a registered trademark.

TAMU contends and believes that to police and maintain the license, TAMU will have administrative costs that it would not otherwise incur. In recognition of these costs, to promote the goals of the TAMU and in consideration for the releases and license provided for in this agreement, Seattle will pay $5,000 per year to TAMU.

Here's most of the agreement again.
"12th Man" - Inside Texas A&M'''s License Agreement with the Seattle Seahawks - Good Bull Hunting

 

[fastforward]

Maybe Los Angeles City Council will buy a license and display it on all their garbage trucks.

 

[BoBlake]

Here's an interesting article from 2006 Trademark Magazine around this case.

http://www.kilpatricktownsend.com/~...an_filename=Lisa Pearson Trademark World.ashx

 

[Cave_Johnson]

This kind of reminds me of an article I read recently about how Boise State owns the trademark on not just blue turf, but ANY non-green turf. Some school ( maybe Eastern Michigan?) was trying to install a different turf color ( not blue ) and they had to go through Boise State. I think the school pretty much approves the use of any turf color that isn't their exact shade of blue without question, and that's probably because they know there is no way their trademark on ALL colors of turf would hold up in court.

Seems like a similar situation here with A&M trademarking a generic term. Neither Seattle or A&M wants to take it to court so you get the Seahawks forking out chump change to use it. Not a big deal really, but I don't think A&M would win the case if somebody challenged them on it.

 

[WizardHawk]

Did Seattle use the term "12th man"? Did A&M file suit? Did Seattle end up paying to use that term?


Tell me where I'm wrong that SEA tried to use something they didn't own.


The FACT is that it doesn't matter who used the term, the FACT is who owns the rights to it.

We can keep going around in circles on this if you like, but it's a FACT that Seattle used that term long before it was trademarked, therefor it was not stolen as you suggested. That is pure FACT. It is also fact that it is a generic term used across several sports and was widely used by many teams long before it was trademarked.

Again, that the legal system allowed this stupidity is not proof of righteousness. The law doesn't concern itself with matters of moral or ethical justice. It simply doesn't. To suggest having a trademark is proof of anything other than shrewd business practices on behalf of TAMU is naive at best.

 

[fordman84]

LOL. I've posted links to the agreement itself already. Here is the relevant piece. The ownership of the trademark is indisputable. It is in fact a registered trademark.




Here's most of the agreement again.
"12th Man" - Inside Texas A&M'''s License Agreement with the Seattle Seahawks - Good Bull Hunting

Tell me how you think that is Seattle saying "we are probably right but don't feel like fighting"?

 

[WizardHawk]

This kind of reminds me of an article I read recently about how Boise State owns the trademark on not just blue turf, but ANY non-green turf. Some school ( maybe Eastern Michigan?) was trying to install a different turf color ( not blue ) and they had to go through Boise State. I think the school pretty much approves the use of any turf color that isn't their exact shade of blue without question, and that's probably because they know there is no way their trademark on ALL colors of turf would hold up in court.

Seems like a similar situation here with A&M trademarking a generic term. Neither Seattle or A&M wants to take it to court so you get the Seahawks forking out chump change to use it. Not a big deal really, but I don't think A&M would win the case if somebody challenged them on it.

Agree, except it isn't just chump change. A lot of talk about the 5k per year is discussed, but not the 100k up front. The 5k is a maintenance fee. If they renew they would likely have another massive balloon payment up front again. Not that the amount really matters. It's the principle. And in this case a once honorable institution has lost all credibility with this pure stupidity.

 

[fordman84]

We can keep going around in circles on this if you like, but it's a FACT that Seattle used that term long before it was trademarked, therefor it was not stolen as you suggested. That is pure FACT. It is also fact that it is a generic term used across several sports and was widely used by many teams long before it was trademarked.

Again, that the legal system allowed this stupidity is not proof of righteousness. The law doesn't concern itself with matters of moral or ethical justice. It simply doesn't. To suggest having a trademark is proof of anything other than shrewd business practices on behalf of TAMU is naive at best.

Call it whatever you want, but the FACT remains that Seattle doesn't own the rights to something so if they want to use it they need A&M to okay it.

 

[fordman84]

Agree, except it isn't just chump change. A lot of talk about the 5k per year is discussed, but not the 100k up front. The 5k is a maintenance fee. If they renew they would likely have another massive balloon payment up front again. Not that the amount really matters. It's the principle. And in this case a once honorable institution has lost all credibility with this pure stupidity.

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.

 

[Cave_Johnson]

Agree, except it isn't just chump change. A lot of talk about the 5k per year is discussed, but not the 100k up front. The 5k is a maintenance fee. If they renew they would likely have another massive balloon payment up front again. Not that the amount really matters. It's the principle. And in this case a once honorable institution has lost all credibility with this pure stupidity.

Chump change to Paul Allen I guess is what I meant, but yeah not in general.

 

[cwood]

Agree, except it isn't just chump change. A lot of talk about the 5k per year is discussed, but not the 100k up front. The 5k is a maintenance fee. If they renew they would likely have another massive balloon payment up front again. Not that the amount really matters. It's the principle. And in this case a once honorable institution has lost all credibility with this pure stupidity.

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

 

[BHF]

As you and other SEA fans have pointed out "#12" is not the same thing as "12th Man". That has been claimed up and down this entire thread.

You can keep saying I'm wrong, but the Trademark is A&M's. Seattle agreed to that. Seattle entered into a settlement to keep using something.

So keep telling me I'm wrong if you must, but I'm not.

If A&M believed they would have won the lawsuit, they wouldn't have settled for chump change as soon as the Hawks got it moved into a Federal court. The knew the odds weren't in their favor, or their was enough legal ambiguity that the lawsuit could easily come back and bite them in the ass and cost them a mint. With the settlement A&M saved face, had ammunition if another entity in Texas wants to try and market 12th Man merchandise without paying them (which was almost certainly their larger fear), and Seattle saves a ton in legal fees.

No way A&M tries to push this issue.

 

[flyerhawk]

That's your take on it. Or more realistically SEA knew they were wrong, but A&M knew there was little impact to themselves so they granted the rights at a low price.

A&M wasn't in the situation where they needed to "settle". So your take that Seattle just allowed A&M to charge them money is laughable.

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.

 

[fordman84]

If A&M believed they would have won the lawsuit, they wouldn't have settled for chump change as soon as the Hawks got it moved into a Federal court. The knew the odds weren't in their favor, or their was enough legal ambiguity that the lawsuit could easily come back and bite them in the ass and cost them a mint. With the settlement A&M saved face, had ammunition if another entity in Texas wants to try and market 12th Man merchandise without paying them (which was almost certainly their larger fear), and Seattle saves a ton in legal fees.

No way A&M tries to push this issue.

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.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Seahawks should bust out some male cheerleaders and really dare a&m to sue them.