Texas A&M threatens to sue double amputee, cancer survivor

[sooner78wakeboard]

Texas A&M threatens to sue double amputee, cancer survivor | FOX Sports on MSN

"My experience has proven two things: a handicapped person can accomplish just about anything and Texas A&M will sue just about anybody," Sonntag told the paper.

 

[WizardHawk]

Everyone uses 'the 12th man.' It's a shame that people can actually buy and own words," he said. "We're not doing anything to harm their school, or take any business away from them or making any money off of it. It's just a fan organization that wants to save our Bills."

Couldn't agree more. A&M needs to get over it. It's a term they didn't even create, weren't the first to use it, and no other football team that has used those words has copied or otherwise taken anything away from their traditions.

It's a fucking term like 19th hole, the 10th frame, or the 10th inning. Businesses use those all over the place. No one should be able to trademark a generic term like that. This is the perfect example of why.

 

[Gooch1034]

I'm not sure why they cherry picked about one of the guys being an amputee/cancer survivor in this article? I think its just stupid that Texas A&m are trying to "own" words?

 

[Codaxx]

1912 article in The Iowa Alumnus in which "the loyal spirited Iowa rooter" is called "the 12th man on the team." And even earlier than that, in 1900, a magazine from the University of Minnesota referred to "the mysterious influence of the 12th man on the team, the rooter."

Adding to the historical murk, recollections from Gill and others were gathered decades later. Gill himself said the "12th man" legend originated in a 1939 radio play.
Despite the recent evidence, Shane Hinckley, A&M's interim vice president of marketing and communications, stands by the trademark claim. "We have the longest continued use of the 12th Man mark, dating back to 1922," he said.


Word on the Street: The Seahawks Pay for an Aggie Phrase - WSJ


I think Iowa and Minnesota should sue.

 

[WizardHawk]

Well if using a term more than others is all you need then OD needs to get busy on making his trademarks for skoooo ducks and natty on a platter and start suing some bitches.

 

[HizzleRocker]

Oh dear lord the aggies really make it easy.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

I don't see anything wrong with A&M doing this. The fact that the guy is a cancer survivor and double amputee is not really relevant. In order to maintain a trademark, you have to defend it. From the university's perspective, it makes sense to trademark "12th man" if they are allowed to do so. If you have complaints about that, take it up with those that approved the trademark.

 

[WizardHawk]

Having legal right is not the same as a moral right. Sorry it's not.

So now if we don't like something we have to actually go talk to the courts? I mean what is this board for if it isn't to bitch about stupid shit?

 

[oaknightshockey1]

Having legal right is not the same as a moral right. Sorry it's not.

So now if we don't like something we have to actually go talk to the courts? I mean what is this board for if it isn't to bitch about stupid shit?

Obviously they have the legal right. They also have a legal obligation to defend their trademark, and if they do not, they can lose it. There's nothing to do with morals there. They have the trademark, they want to keep the trademark, they have to defend the trademark. It doesn't matter who is using it.

 

[oaknightshockey1]

For the record, I think the fact that they were able to trademark "The 12th Man" is really dumb. But someone let them, so it's smart of A&M to do so.

 

[Codaxx]

For the record, I think the fact that they were able to trademark "The 12th Man" is really dumb. But someone let them, so it's smart of A&M to do so.

Yes. This is like the guy getting a domain name for a riding star, just to sell it to him for a profit. It's legal, but still scummy

 

[oaknightshockey1]

I also am not a big fan of when the media sensationalizes stuff like the whole "cancer survivor double amputee" thing. Not that I don't have sympathy for someone in that situation, I just don't think it's relevant...it is only put in to add an emotional spin to it. I realize I may be coming off like an insensitive asshole in this thread, I just understand the fact that if A&M wants to keep their trademark, they are required to take action to defend it.

 

[tech_iceman]

aggy gonna aggy

 

[GoldRusher]

Pooooooor Aggies. Guess they need the money

 

[963BUSC]

Puts the Aggies in a tough spot. If they don't aggressively defend the term they lose it. If they do aggressively defend it a double amputee cancer survivor who can show the terms use going back to 1912 and 1922 would have a good chance to prevail in court (assuming it would be in front of a jury?)


Anyway seems like a good move for aTm to agree to license the use of the term for a $1 or some such thing.

 

[charlie42s]

Pooooooor Aggies. Guess they need the money

Here's the gist of the subject, will "that school" be damaged by an out of state entity selling items promoting a team other than "that school's team"?
Legally the answer is no.
Few people in Buffalo or any city not in Texas, will even purchase a Maroon "12th Man" t-shirt, if it was available for purchase in a local store. The vast majority probably wouldn't know it was even a school in the state of Texas.

 

[lilchi721]

A&M owns the trademark.

 

[trojanfan12]

I don't disagree that aTm owns the trademark (although I do think words and phrases should be exempt), but I think they need to be a little smarter about whom they choose to sue for using it.


Sometimes it's just not worth the negative publicity.


Also, I wonder if they intend to sue the Seattle Seahawks for using the term?

 

[lilchi721]

I don't disagree that aTm owns the trademark (although I do think words and phrases should be exempt), but I think they need to be a little smarter about whom they choose to sue for using it.


Sometimes it's just not worth the negative publicity.


Also, I wonder if they intend to sue the Seattle Seahawks for using the term?

Seattle has to pay A&M to use it.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

Although they had to do was charge some nominal licensing fee that is entirely private.


It would have been great publicity while protecting the trademark at the same time.


Instead Aggie does what Aggie always does......


It is just too darn easy with Pooooooooooooooooooor Aggie.