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

[Lance Armstrong]

It's lame that a&m owns the term "12th man", but its funny that when you say 12th man America thinks of the Seattle Seahawk fanbase.

 

[fordman84]

It's lame that a&m owns the term "12th man", but its funny that when you say 12th man America thinks of the Seattle Seahawk fanbase.

Only because they are what is most relevant right now. As for how funny it is, not sure you will find any Aggies that care if it is funny or not. Considering we are getting paid when it is officially used, go for it Seattle.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Yeah, it was smart of a&m. Rent out when of your traditions, then watch them take it to new heights. Get that money aggies.

 

[Codaxx]

Yeah, it was smart of a&m. Rent out when of your traditions, then watch them take it to new heights. Get that money aggies.

-
not really. It is a term stolen from common usage. The entire claim is tenuous at best. Seahawks only gave them 100k to end the nonsense and 5k annually. Basically it was cheaper than fighting it in court and paying lawyers, which is exactly what is expected by people who trademark things like this. .

 

[fordman84]

Yeah, it was smart of a&m. Rent out when of your traditions, then watch them take it to new heights. Get that money aggies.

So Texas has no trademarks? :rollseyes:

 

[fordman84]

-
not really. It is a term stolen from common usage. The entire claim is tenuous at best. Seahawks only gave them 100k to end the nonsense and 5k annually. Basically it was cheaper than fighting it in court and paying lawyers, which is exactly what is expected by people who trademark things like this. .

Unless you invent a new language or word, any trademarked phrase is that way.

 

[occupant]

Get that money aggies.

 

[Lance Armstrong]

UT should trademark using real pigskin, and rent it out to everybody in america.

 

[Codaxx]

So Texas has no trademarks? :rollseyes:

of course they do, but 12th man was a common term well before 1989 when A&M applied for the trademark. It was used well before the 1922 game that A&M claims is the bases for the tradition, despite the fact Mr Gill never actually played in said game. Term showed up in A&M papers prior to 1922. Biggest push in the "tradition" was actually by Jackie in the 1980s. This is a much more generic saying than most trademarks.

 

[fordman84]

of course they do, but 12th man was a common term well before 1989 when A&M applied for the trademark. It was used well before the 1922 game that A&M claims is the bases for the tradition, despite the fact Mr Gill never actually played in said game. Term showed up in A&M papers prior to 1922. Biggest push in the "tradition" was actually by Jackie in the 1980s. This is a much more generic saying than most trademarks.

And Texas wasn't the first entity to use a longhorns head, but I bet you have a trademark on that.

 

[Codaxx]

And Texas wasn't the first entity to use a longhorns head, but I bet you have a trademark on that.

Just deflecting. Longhorn emblem is specific. It is not like Texas sued the Texans for using a bovine related emblem. That emblem was not something used in common sports lexicon prior to the trademark either. Trade marking the 12th man is like applyng for a trademark on the 19th green.

 

[BTHOtu]

Texas should sue Joe Dirt for flashing the hook 'em sign repeatedly through out the movie in reference to rock music and not texas university.

 

[Used 2 B Hu]

Is Aggie done kicking the ADA's ass??

 

[BTHOtu]

of course they do, but 12th man was a common term well before 1989 when A&M applied for the trademark. It was used well before the 1922 game that A&M claims is the bases for the tradition, despite the fact Mr Gill never actually played in said game. Term showed up in A&M papers prior to 1922. Biggest push in the "tradition" was actually by Jackie in the 1980s. This is a much more generic saying than most trademarks.

makes sense that they trademarked it. Had they not done it, they would have to pay someone else to use it.

 

[fordman84]

Just deflecting. Longhorn emblem is specific. It is not like Texas sued the Texans for using a bovine related emblem. That emblem was not something used in common sports lexicon prior to the trademark either. Trade marking the 12th man is like applyng for a trademark on the 19th green.

Not deflecting.

19th green would be stupid, but 19th hole IS trademarked.

 

[Codaxx]

Not deflecting.

19th green would be stupid, but 19th hole IS trademarked.

-
You can use the term at any golf bar and pay nobody. It is trademarked as an apparel brand. Clearly another money grab that is a bit sketchy. There are plenty of them out there. It is more an indictment of our legal system than proof that A&M is doing the right thing. I do maintain that the 12th Man is more similar to "19th Green" than the "19th hole", which is a little twist on a commonly used term

 

[fordman84]

-
You can use the term at any golf bar and pay nobody. It is trademarked as an apparel brand. Clearly another money grab that is a bit sketchy. There are plenty of them out there. It is more an indictment of our legal system than proof that A&M is doing the right thing. I do maintain that the 12th Man is more similar to "19th Green" than the "19th hole", which is a little twist on a commonly used term

Well good for you for sticking to your high horse. The US legal system doesn't agree with you though, and until they do A&M has a right and an obligation to protect what it owns. Sorry if that upsets you.

 

[Codaxx]

Well good for you for sticking to your high horse. The US legal system doesn't agree with you though, and until they do A&M has a right and an obligation to protect what it owns. Sorry if that upsets you.

Way to address the issue. Legal system says so. That is deep

 

[Lance Armstrong]

Texas should sue Joe Dirt for flashing the hook 'em sign repeatedly through out the movie in reference to rock music and not texas university.

I bet you don't even realize you're making fun of aTm, and not UT.

 

[fordman84]

Way to address the issue. Legal system says so. That is deep

No no, please let's carry on about something that has already been argued in front of a court many times and never over turned. :rollseyes: