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

[Davis_Mike]

It's sucks but they need to vigorously protect their trademark or risk losing it. But what I don't understand is why can't they sell the rights to use it in cases like this for a fee of like a $1 for 10 years.

 

[HuskerOC]

I guess you didn't see any of the Seattle media when those fuckers sued over their generic term trademark then? :rollseyes:

It's fucking lame no matter what you think.

QUOTE]

Fanfuckingtastic.

 

[charlie42s]

Hopefully, some of that school's fanbase in the Buffalo area will get together and help out by pulling down the 800+ posters that have already been installed and mail them back to CS, which has been demanded by the lawyers.

 

[trojanfan12]

It's sucks but they need to vigorously protect their trademark or risk losing it. But what I don't understand is why can't they sell the rights to use it in cases like this for a fee of like a $1 for 10 years.

Exactly. I completely understand that aTm has trademarked the term and has the right to sue pretty much anyone who uses it. However, there is no reason that they can't be a little more discerning as to how they defend it.

If someone is selling shirts or something in aTm colors or misrepresenting them as being endorsed by aTm, then by all means, sue them.

But when it's being used as a generic term for something that has nothing to do with aTm, then just do as you suggested and have them pay a ridiculously small fee to use it. It would actually paint aTm in a much better light than what they are currently doing.

 

[Backroads]

Hopefully, some of that school's fanbase in the Buffalo area will get together and help out by pulling down the 800+ posters that have already been installed and mail them back to CS, which has been demanded by the lawyers.

This is a good example of Texas fans spinning a story to make it look worse for someone else (the other way would be to spin it so that Texas looks good....which is hard to do)

C42...you might want to read the story first....

Attorneys wanted all 250 posters promoting the site taken down from restaurants and bars around Buffalo.

 

[Backroads]

Exactly. I completely understand that aTm has trademarked the term and has the right to sue pretty much anyone who uses it. However, there is no reason that they can't be a little more discerning as to how they defend it.

If someone is selling shirts or something in aTm colors or misrepresenting them as being endorsed by aTm, then by all means, sue them.

But when it's being used as a generic term for something that has nothing to do with aTm, then just do as you suggested and have them pay a ridiculously small fee to use it. It would actually paint aTm in a much better light than what they are currently doing.

As I said earlier, it is also reputation...Texas probably wouldn't want a website in Montana using Hook 'em Horns to promote keeping the Montana Bison from moving to Wyoming...nor would USC want a figure dressed as your Trojan sticking a sword promoting Cheesy Bakers in Bumfrack, Washington.

It might be hard to believe for some Texas guys...but other schools are also very well known around the states.

 

[trojanfan12]

As I said earlier, it is also reputation...Texas probably wouldn't want a website in Montana using Hook 'em Horns to promote keeping the Montana Bison from moving to Wyoming...nor would USC want a figure dressed as your Trojan sticking a sword promoting Cheesy Bakers in Bumfrack, Washington.

It might be hard to believe for some Texas guys...but other schools are also very well known around the states.

The difference, imo, would be that those would be businesses using it for profit. This was some non-profit fan organization trying to keep their team in Buffalo.

Also, to my knowledge, USC has never sued anyone for using the Trojan likeness or for using the term Fight On (which USC does have trademarked).

 

[charlie42s]

This is a good example of Texas fans spinning a story to make it look worse for someone else (the other way would be to spin it so that Texas looks good....which is hard to do)

C42...you might want to read the story first....

I got my number from Keith Olbermann. Blame him.

... and you completely misread my post. How you could spin it to make Longhorns look good is "insistent".

 

[Backroads]

I got my number from Keith Olbermann. Blame him.

... and you completely misread my post. How you could spin it to make Longhorns look good is "insistent".

Missed it again....it was spun to make TAMU look worse...

Whether he said or not, you posted.....

smh

 

[Backroads]

The difference, imo, would be that those would be businesses using it for profit. This was some non-profit fan organization trying to keep their team in Buffalo.

Also, to my knowledge, USC has never sued anyone for using the Trojan likeness or for using the term Fight On (which USC does have trademarked).

Thought readers wouldn't be so literal and would get the gist since these were obvious fake examples. Not for profit but using those trademarks making folks think of Texas or USC when they saw the signs/name.

Think reputation, not profit...thought I made that clear when I said "it is also reputation"

 

[trojanfan12]

Thought readers wouldn't be so literal and would get the gist since these were obvious fake examples. Not for profit but using those trademarks making folks think of Texas or USC when they saw the signs/name.

Think reputation, not profit...thought I made that clear when I said "it is also reputation"

I didn't take it literally, it was the example you used and I responded to it.

I think suing some non-profit fan organization does a lot more damage to their "reputation" than if they had simply worked out a deal with that fan organization.

Folks can try to "spin it" and claim trademark laws all they want, the fact remains that these fans weren't profiting, weren't trying to pass it off as endorsed by aTm, wasn't using aTm colors and were no threat to aTm's brand or reputation.

Teams have referred to their fans as the "12th man" since long before aTm decided to trademark the term and they likely had no idea that there was a trademark on it. Hell, I had no idea that USC had "Fight On" trademarked until I looked it up this morning.

For aTm to take this kind of action is classless and looks bad.

Right now, the biggest threat to aTm's "reputation" is aTm.

 

[Backroads]

I didn't take it literally, it was the example you used and I responded to it.

I think suing some non-profit fan organization does a lot more damage to their "reputation" than if they had simply worked out a deal with that fan organization.

Folks can try to "spin it" and claim trademark laws all they want, the fact remains that these fans weren't profiting, weren't trying to pass it off as endorsed by aTm, wasn't using aTm colors and were no threat to aTm's brand or reputation.

Teams have referred to their fans as the "12th man" since long before aTm decided to trademark the term and they likely had no idea that there was a trademark on it. Hell, I had no idea that USC had "Fight On" trademarked until I looked it up this morning.

For aTm to take this kind of action is classless and looks bad.

Right now, the biggest threat to aTm's "reputation" is aTm.

No problem...just figured the "reputation also" would cover that part.

I see your point, and they probably could have handled it differently. One question I have is that since the heading of the article made it sound like the guy being an amputee and cancer survivor was the issue....THAT is spinning a new story. If they spun that, what else did they omit? Usually, in these cases, the offended party reaches out with a cease and desist letter first? Perhaps there was an attempt and the guy ignored them? Forcing a lawsuit and then TAMU has to respond in kind to keep others from trying it????

Not saying TAMU is particularly innocent, but there might be more to the story than what we are getting????

At any rate, in a perfect world, TAMU should have talked to them and reached an amicable decision.

 

[Backroads]

I didn't take it literally, it was the example you used and I responded to it.

I think suing some non-profit fan organization does a lot more damage to their "reputation" than if they had simply worked out a deal with that fan organization.

Folks can try to "spin it" and claim trademark laws all they want, the fact remains that these fans weren't profiting, weren't trying to pass it off as endorsed by aTm, wasn't using aTm colors and were no threat to aTm's brand or reputation.

Teams have referred to their fans as the "12th man" since long before aTm decided to trademark the term and they likely had no idea that there was a trademark on it. Hell, I had no idea that USC had "Fight On" trademarked until I looked it up this morning.

For aTm to take this kind of action is classless and looks bad.

Right now, the biggest threat to aTm's "reputation" is aTm.

BTW...I like your signature line...that's a good song

 

[trojanfan12]

No problem...just figured the "reputation also" would cover that part.

I see your point, and they probably could have handled it differently. One question I have is that since the heading of the article made it sound like the guy being an amputee and cancer survivor was the issue....THAT is spinning a new story. If they spun that, what else did they omit? Usually, in these cases, the offended party reaches out with a cease and desist letter first? Perhaps there was an attempt and the guy ignored them? Forcing a lawsuit and then TAMU has to respond in kind to keep others from trying it????

Not saying TAMU is particularly innocent, but there might be more to the story than what we are getting????

At any rate, in a perfect world, TAMU should have talked to them and reached an amicable decision.

Yeah, the author of the article definitely sensationalized it with the "double amputee/cancer survivor" angle. You're also correct in that we don't know if a cease and desist letter was sent or not.

Even a cease and desist seems a bit hamhanded though. The whole thing probably could have been resolved without getting into any of that. But we truly don't know how it reached the point that it has.

 

[trojanfan12]

BTW...I like your signature line...that's a good song

Thanks. It's one of the few country songs that I like.

 

[ElTexan]

As much as I like to make fun of Aggie, institutions have a right to defend a trademark, and really must do so vigorously for that trademark to survive or have any meaning.

If you start making exceptions for political reasons, where does it end?
A cancer survivor amputee can?
How about just a cancer survivor?
How about just a kid with a birth defect?
How abut just some high school kids raising money for their football program?
How about a group that claims it isn't trying to rep TAMU but wants to make some money?
How about a group of Vets who went to TAMU, fought in wars, and wants to raise money for their VFW Chapter and wants to sell maroon colored "12th man" t-shirts in A&M style font?

 

[TexasExes98]

As much as I like to make fun of Aggie, institutions have a right to defend a trademark, and really must do so vigorously for that trademark to survive or have any meaning.

If you start making exceptions for political reasons, where does it end?
A cancer survivor amputee can?
How about just a cancer survivor?
How about just a kid with a birth defect?
How abut just some high school kids raising money for their football program?
How about a group that claims it isn't trying to rep TAMU but wants to make some money?
How about a group of Vets who went to TAMU, fought in wars, and wants to raise money for their VFW Chapter and wants to sell maroon colored "12th man" t-shirts in A&M style font?

Yup, I agree. I don't think Aggy is wrong at all on this issue and no, I don't think they should have handled it in any other way. It's their trademark, regardless of the individual's situation. Tough shit.....

 

[fordman84]

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.

No one with a brain and not wearing baby-poo orange does.

If you have a trademark you are legally obligated to defend it or you lose it. End of story.

 

[fordman84]

They did and for a short time they had to stop using it. Of course the fans used it anyway and totally said fuck you to that stupid ass bullshit. The team ended up settling and paid for the right. They can use it in the stadium, but they still cannot sell any merchandise with it on it.

They have some great traditions at that school and a unique fan experience, but this stunt by them totally makes them look like a bunch of jackasses and kills any chance of having normal people pull for them.

Fuck A&M and their stupidity.

Fuck you and wanting to use something that isn't yours.

 

[fordman84]

The group, not the one amputee cherry picked, was told weeks ago to stop using it. They ignored two requests and only when a lawsuit was THREATENED, not initiated, did the group stop ignoring A&M and actually got their asses moving.


Fuck these guys and fuck the reporters who downplay a group stealing something and choosing to ignore requests from the rightful owners, but playing up the disabilities of one of the members.