Why can't they say "Super Bowl" on the radio?

[Cluricaun]

I understand it's a copywritten name, but why can't the local radio stations say "We're giving away two tickets to the Super Bowl"? They all seem to have to resort to dancing all around the phrase, without actually uttering those two magical words. Is it because they stand to profit by the use of the name in their contests? They can't even say the names of the teams. It seems a bit silly, as ultimately don't the owners of the copyright stand to benefit through the most exposure to their "brand name"?

[Jonathan Chance]

Yep. The NFL has a trademark on the term 'SuperBowl' and charges to allow for-profit enterprises to use it. If they allow someone who hasn't paid to use it they cheapen the value that they can charge their 'official' sponsors for the right to use it. And they don't want that, believe me.

Note: News programs and such can use the term just fine. You won't see a local sports anchor dancing around the subject. Or the guys on ESPN. Unless it's in a commercial and their station or network hasn't worked it out.

[Philster]

Please use 'search', as this subject gets worked over every January. It has been beaten to death.

[Honey]

Please use 'search', as this subject gets worked over every January. It has been beaten to death.

That was a bit mean. Why not just answer the question or provide a link or two?

:(

[Exapno Mapcase]

Guests have an excuse for not searching, but part of the culture here is that members of several years standing should know to do a search before posting obvious questions that probably have been handled before.

And once again an OP fails to understand the difference between copyright and trademark. Super Bowl is a trademark, and by law trademarks must be rigorously defended at all times. A trademark owner doesn't get to say "oh, that's just a minor violation" or "that's just making our name more valuable." If violations are not defended, someone can challenge the entire trademark in court and have a much better chance of winning.

[Uncommon Sense]

Please use 'search', as this subject gets worked over every January. It has been beaten to death.

Sure, but you do realise that things tend to change over time, and not every single question asked in GQ gets a perfect answer, right?
Not that it applies to this particular OP.
It grinds on me when someone knee jerks a "Do a search next time!!" without providing a link to a satisfactory thread. How does philster know the topic has been answered correctly in any previous thread(s) unless he himself has done a search, and then if he has done a search he should be able to provide the link to the thread.
Thankyou.

[AskNott]

Just say, "Superb Owl."

[Balthisar]

To summarize everything in every other thread, ever:

1. Trademark must be defended.
2. Never been tested in court. See #1.
3. Probably okay due to right of first sale, but see #2.

[CalMeacham]

Yep. The NFL has a trademark on the term 'SuperBowl' and charges to allow for-profit enterprises to use it. If they allow someone who hasn't paid to use it they cheapen the value that they can charge their 'official' sponsors for the right to use it. And they don't want that, believe me.


I don't understand the ratyionale here. Certainly Kleenex gets annoyed when people call other tissues "Kleenex", and Xerox gets annoyed when people use the product and company name as a generic verb for "photocopy". That causes the uniqueness of their brand name to be deteriorated, to the point where they might lose that unique name -- like aspirin and cellophane and zipper and adrenaline.

But here people aren't using the name "Super Bowl" to refer to some other big football game -- they're only using it to refer to the one and only Super Bowkl. There's no chance of deteriooration of meaning whatsoever.

Furthermore, nobody else sues to prevent others from using the name -- People talk about "King Kong" climing the "Empire State Building" -- not "the big ape movie" with "the big building in New York". Most people are happy for the publicity. Even the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is touchy about their trasdemark, hasn't stopped people on the radio from talking about "Academy Awards" and "Oscars". so howcum on the radio this morning the DJs had to say "Big Game" instead of "Super Bowl"?

[Giles]

Earlier threads on this question:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=298919
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=235319

[Shoeless]

I don't understand the ratyionale here. Certainly Kleenex gets annoyed when people call other tissues "Kleenex", and Xerox gets annoyed when people use the product and company name as a generic verb for "photocopy". That causes the uniqueness of their brand name to be deteriorated, to the point where they might lose that unique name -- like aspirin and cellophane and zipper and adrenaline.
adrenaline? :confused:
I had to look this one up. "adrenaline" is not a trademark, it is a product of the adrenal gland. However, "Adrenalin" is trademarked. Thanks, Webster's, for clearing that up.

[Uncommon Sense]

Furthermore, nobody else sues to prevent others from using the name -- People talk about "King Kong" climing the "Empire State Building" -- not "the big ape movie" with "the big building in New York". Most people are happy for the publicity. Even the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is touchy about their trasdemark, hasn't stopped people on the radio from talking about "Academy Awards" and "Oscars". so howcum on the radio this morning the DJs had to say "Big Game" instead of "Super Bowl"?

(I think) If the station is giving away tickets or promoting the event in some fashion as to increase exposure for the radio station but hasn't paid the NFL to explicitly use the term for this purpose then they can't use the term.
IOW, the station gains by the fact that there is a game coming up but can't use the term aid in the gain without payment to the league.
In your other cases it's unlikely that the station gains from the Oscars, the Academy Awards, or the movie King Kong. Although, if the station were to give away tickets to the movie King Kong could they use the Title in promotions of such activity freely? (I would not think so)

[Acsenray]

I understand it's a copywritten name

There's no such word as "copywritten." It's "copyrighted." And you can't copyright a name.

[SentientMeat]

Assuming Super Bowl is a trade mark, where is the confusion over source of goods if the radio presenter is not trying to call another game a Super Bowl? Trade marks don't cover simply using the word in conversation or transmitted speech unless there it clearly engenders some detriment to the good will of the mark owner.

We're using the words here on a subscription (for-profit) message board, for crying out loud!

[Acsenray]

Assuming Super Bowl is a trade mark, where is the confusion over source of goods if the radio presenter is not trying to call another game a Super Bowl? Trade marks don't cover simply using the word in conversation or transmitted speech unless there it clearly engenders some detriment to the good will of the mark owner.

We're using the words here on a subscription (for-profit) message board, for crying out loud!

The issue is not just that the word is being used to describe the thing ("nominative fair use"). It's that the mark is being used in connection with a promotion, which, the NFL will argue, is unauthorized and diminishes the value of its mark ("trademark dilution") and interferes with its own profit-generating exclusive arrangements with other profit-making operations ("exclusive" or "official" Super Bowl-related things).

[Giles]

We're using the words here on a subscription (for-profit) message board, for crying out loud!
Yes, but people talking about the Super Bowl here are not marketing or selling anything: they are discussing legal issues. And the SD is not using the phrase "Super Bowl" to sell itself.

When a radio station gives away things like game tickets, it is marketing itself; and if it used the phrase "Super Bowl" in that give-away, it would be using the phrase to market itself as a radio station, and so indirectly trying to make money out of the name.

[TellMeI'mNotCrazy]

Assuming Super Bowl is a trade mark, where is the confusion over source of goods if the radio presenter is not trying to call another game a Super Bowl? Trade marks don't cover simply using the word in conversation or transmitted speech unless there it clearly engenders some detriment to the good will of the mark owner.

We're using the words here on a subscription (for-profit) message board, for crying out loud!
I think the difference is, we don't stand to profit from mentioning the Super Bowl. Radio stations and the like who run competitions where Super Bowl tickets are the prize do stand to profit - they don't just give the tickets away out of the kindness of their hearts.

[control-z]

I think the difference is, we don't stand to profit from mentioning the Super Bowl. Radio stations and the like who run competitions where Super Bowl tickets are the prize do stand to profit - they don't just give the tickets away out of the kindness of their hearts.

So by the same logic are you not allowed to give away a Ford Mustang without obtaining permission from Ford? You can't even say what it is you're giving away? Where does it end?

I hate football anyway. I'll play football or a football video game, but sitting there for 3 hours watching millionaires run around the field for 5 seconds and spend the next 30 seconds scratching their ass isn't my idea of fun.

[Duckster]

The National Football League (“NFL”) controls all marketing rights with respect to the Super Bowl and its associated trademarks. The NFL uses its protected marks for revenue-raising purposes and reserves the use of such symbols to official sponsors and licensees who have made major investments in order to acquire the right to use these marks. In consideration of these major investments made by official sponsors and licensees, the NFL vigorously protects and enforces its rights in Super Bowl marks.

Attempting to form an association with the NFL or the Super Bowl in the minds of consumers by using promotions and advertisements designed to create the appearance of a relationship between the station and/or station clients and the Super Bowl — sometimes referred to as “ambush marketing” — is a risky practice. The NFL and its official sponsors may have legal claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, and misappropriation of good will against entities infringing sponsorship rights. Unlicensed use of such trademarks for any purpose, including the sale or promotion of any products or services bearing those marks, for the purpose of trade or to induce the sale of any goods or services is unlawful. Although the use of a disclaimer, such as “not an official sponsor of the Super Bowl” may protect a potential infringer to a certain extent, use of such disclaimers is not fail-safe.

-- snip --

Under federal law, the NFL retains the exclusive right to control marketing of the Super Bowl and its associated trademarks, including the phrases “Super Bowl”, “Super Sunday”, “National Football League”, “NFL”, and the NFL shield and Super Bowl logos.

-- snip --

Without permission from the NFL, an entity cannot legally say or print any of these protected words or use these protected logos in its marketing or promotions.
Source: http://www.lsl-law.com/publications/Superbowl.pdf (PDF Warning)

The above legal opinion address use of "Broadcasts and Promotions Related to Super Bowl XXXVIII." While dated, the article addresses many of the concerns raised here.

[TellMeI'mNotCrazy]

So by the same logic are you not allowed to give away a Ford Mustang without obtaining permission from Ford? You can't even say what it is you're giving away? Where does it end?

I hate football anyway. I'll play football or a football video game, but sitting there for 3 hours watching millionaires run around the field for 5 seconds and spend the next 30 seconds scratching their ass isn't my idea of fun.
I think if Ford wanted to stop you, they'd be completely within their rights to do so.

[CalMeacham]

adrenaline?
I had to look this one up. "adrenaline" is not a trademark, it is a product of the adrenal gland. However, "Adrenalin" is trademarked. Thanks, Webster's, for clearing that up.


But epinephrine is the original generic term. "Adrenaline" was originally a trademarked name, and "adrenaline followed.


The tangled history:


http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7233/506

[control-z]

I think if Ford wanted to stop you, they'd be completely within their rights to do so.

There was a court case that phone book listings could not be copyrighted because they are facts.

Seems to me the same would hold true for Super Bowl and Ford Mustang. It's a *fact* that the radio station is giving away Super Bowl tickets. Not Rolling Stones tickets, Super Bowl tickets. They're giving away a Ford Mustang, not a Chevy Chevette.


That NFL file is incredible. It says that in marketing or promotions:
You cannot say or print: "Super Bowl" you have to say "The Big Game in Houston"
You cannot say or print: "Super Sunday", "NFL", "AFC", "NFC", or any team name.

However, you are allowed to say or print the cities of the teams, the date of the game, and you *can* "make fun of the fact that you cannot say the phrase 'Super Bowl' (e.g., by beeping it out)." Well duh, I guess they haven't managed to trademark the calendar or city names yet. But they're probably working on it!

[CalMeacham]

One more time!


But epinephrine is the original generic term. "Adrenaline" was originally a trademarked name, and "adrenaline followed.


"Epiniephrine" is the original generic term (regardless if based on false connections).

"Adrenalin" was originally a trademarked name, and "adrenaline" followed.

yeah, there's a final "e". But I'll bet Kimberley-Clarke wouldn't be happy if you blew your nose in generic "Kleenexe".

[TellMeI'mNotCrazy]

But the Super Bowl isn't a copyright, it's a trademark. They have "Super Bowl" and "Super Sunday" etc., registered as trademarks and they choose not to let people use them to make money for themselves unless they pony up a fee.

I'm not sure why this is so unreasonable. Last year I took pictures during a show here, and a lot of people who had fan sites asked if they could use my pictures for their sites. My only stipulation was that I didn't want them used for any commercial purposes. They're my pictures, why would I want someone else making money off of them when they didn't pay any money to me?

[TellMeI'mNotCrazy]

Sorry, knew I should have quoted. That was to control-z, in case it wasn't clear.

[Philster]

That was a bit mean. Why not just answer the question or provide a link or two?

:(

Because I am mean.

[Acsenray]

There was a court case that phone book listings could not be copyrighted because they are facts.

Seems to me the same would hold true for Super Bowl and Ford Mustang. It's a *fact* that the radio station is giving away Super Bowl tickets. Not Rolling Stones tickets, Super Bowl tickets. They're giving away a Ford Mustang, not a Chevy Chevette.

This argument is why a lot of people think that if anyone challenged the N.F.L. in court they might win, but it hasn't been done yet. There are arguments on the other side -- do you have the right to use another person's named product to promote your unrelated business? There's an argument that Chevrolet could say "No, Nazi Party of America, you cannot promote your fund-raising drive with a raffle that names the prize as a Chevrolet Chevette."

[Honey]

Because I am mean.

I've read a lot of your posts. I don't think that's true. :)

[RTFirefly]

So by the same logic are you not allowed to give away a Ford Mustang without obtaining permission from Ford? You can't even say what it is you're giving away?I think if Ford wanted to stop you, they'd be completely within their rights to do so.IANAL, but my nonlegal understanding is: probably not anymore, since they've failed to vigorously defend against this use of their trademark in the past. That's why the vigorous defense, obnoxious as I personally find it, is so important.

If Ford had kept other people from using the Mustang trademark in such a fashion ever since they came up with the Mustang, though, ISTM they'd be as well situated, legally, as the NFL is with the Super Bowl.

Wonder if they could call it the "HyperBowl" in promos? (Certainly enough hyperbole around it, each year, for that name to make sense.) The NFL can't exactly say "Bowl" is the critical part of the trademark; bowl games were around for an eon before Pete Rozelle invented the Super Bowl.

[ElvisL1ves]

Oh, it gets worse. The Commonwealth of Kentucky's decision to copyright the name "Kentucky" and charge royalties for commercial use of it has caused more than the end of the name Kentucky Fried Chicken.

The first and most famous Triple Crown horse race of the US season is now officially "The Derby at Churchill Downs". I almost dread the traditional pre-race singing of "My Old Bleepucky Home" this year.

[Charger]

And all this time I thought it was because if you said "Superbowl" seven times, the Super Bowl would appear behind you and kill you.

[Acsenray]

Oh, it gets worse. The Commonwealth of Kentucky's decision to copyright the name "Kentucky" and charge royalties for commercial use of it has caused more than the end of the name Kentucky Fried Chicken.

The first and most famous Triple Crown horse race of the US season is now officially "The Derby at Churchill Downs". I almost dread the traditional pre-race singing of "My Old Bleepucky Home" this year.

Is this a whoosh?

First of all, no one can copyright a single word. You might be able to trademark it, but you would have to show use in commerce associated with a particular product or service. Under U.S. law, I can't imagine a situation in which a government would be permitted to trademark the name of its corresponding geographical entity without reference to something specific.

The whole KFC thing is an urban hoax, by the way. They changed the name, essentially, because they felt like it.

But even if it were true that the Kentucky state government somehow obtained a trademark, they wouldn't be able to show that Kentucky Fried Chicken's use caused confusion amongst consumers. Primarily, because the Commonwealth of Kentucky does not sell fried chicken at retail establishments. But also, even if they did start doing it, KFC would be the senior user of the mark and would have prior rights.

[mobo85]

Furthermore, nobody else sues to prevent others from using the name -- People talk about "King Kong" climing the "Empire State Building" -- not "the big ape movie" with "the big building in New York".

"Empire State Building" and the Empire State Building's design are trademarks of the Empire State Building Company, although I do not think they would threaten legal action if you said the name of the building without their permission. However, you would need their permission to show a photograph of the building. Nobody holds a trademark on "King Kong"- in fact, in most of their marketing (toys, etc.), Universal has been using the (trademarked) phrase, "Kong, the Eighth Wonder of the World." (Universal found out that "King Kong" can't be trademarked the hard way in 1982, when they sued Nintendo for infringement regarding Donkey Kong.)

Is this a whoosh?

In a way, yes. The "the reason KFC changed their name is because they didn't want to pay royalties to the state of Kentucky" explanation comes from a gag page on Snopes.com, part of a number of silly legends which are designed to show (http://www.snopes.com/lost/false.htm) that even the most trusted authorities can fall for an urban legend, hoax, or other falsehood (something to which Dan Rather can certainly attest). Snopes does have a serious page (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/food/kfc.asp) explaining why KFC changed its name (mainly because of the negative connotations of the word "fried" and its adding other foods besides chicken to the menu), although the company has announced it will be using the long version of the name again on its storefronts.

[ElvisL1ves]

Is this a whoosh?Apparently. On me. I hate that.

[BobLibDem]

Is there a similar thing with the Olympic Games? It always looks to me like some newspapers use the word Olympic yet others dance around and call them the Torino Games or whatever. Is it that some papers have paid for the right to use the word Olympic in their coverage?

[Weirddave]

The first and most famous Triple Crown horse race of the US season is now officially "The Derby at Churchill Downs".
Are you sure of that? I thought it was now called "the Kentucky Derby presented by Yum! Brands". Gotta love the history in that name.

[Acsenray]

Is there a similar thing with the Olympic Games? It always looks to me like some newspapers use the word Olympic yet others dance around and call them the Torino Games or whatever. Is it that some papers have paid for the right to use the word Olympic in their coverage?

The Olympic marks are a special case in that they are protected by a special statutory provision that gives the I.O.C., etc. even more protection than the N.F.L. can claim for "SuperBowl."

[Loach]

Is there a similar thing with the Olympic Games? It always looks to me like some newspapers use the word Olympic yet others dance around and call them the Torino Games or whatever. Is it that some papers have paid for the right to use the word Olympic in their coverage?

None of this covers news coverage. I have seen the words "Superbowl", "super Sunday" and Olympics in every newspaper and on every sports broadcast. That same newspaper can not have a special Superbowl contest in those same pages. I just looked in the paper and there was a section called "Super Bowl Plus". There is also mention of the Olympics.

[Mr2001]

But the Super Bowl isn't a copyright, it's a trademark. They have "Super Bowl" and "Super Sunday" etc., registered as trademarks and they choose not to let people use them to make money for themselves unless they pony up a fee.

I'm not sure why this is so unreasonable. Last year I took pictures during a show here, and a lot of people who had fan sites asked if they could use my pictures for their sites. My only stipulation was that I didn't want them used for any commercial purposes. They're my pictures, why would I want someone else making money off of them when they didn't pay any money to me?
Your example is about copyright, not trademarks.

It's unreasonable because if you can't say "Super Bowl", you can't describe the offer you're making. Imagine if you were trying to sell your car through the want ads, but you weren't allowed to mention the make or model. You just had to say "it's one of those trucks that ROVES over all kinds of LAND", or "it's the kind of TOY you might see Tom SELLECK-A driving".

Wouldn't that be silly? You'd have to dance around an issue that really is the most important fact about what you're offering. The people who might buy your car want to know it's a Land Rover or a Toyota Celica, just like the people who enter a contest want to know the tickets they might win are for the Super Bowl. That's the whole attraction. The only reason the contest is worth entering is because the tickets are for that particular game.

If you have to dance around it, your customers don't really know what they're getting. Say I entice you to buy something by giving you a chance to win tickets for "the big football game in Detroit that rhymes with Dooper Bowl", and it turns out to be Cooper Mole's First Annual Gridiron Showdown - would you have any recourse? I've obviously deceived you, but on the other hand, I gave you exactly what I promised.

It seems to me this is a clear case of nominative fair use: the phrase Super Bowl is being used to explain which football game the tickets are for, a vital fact that's hard to accurately express any other way. I'm not surprised that the NFL's position hasn't been proven in court.

[Jet Jaguar]

A slight hijack, but the disclaimers the NFL plays during the games on TV says that any descriptions of the game without their consent is prohibited. Does that mean if I say something like "in the Steelers-Bengals playoff game, Carson Palmer took a hit on the first play that ended his season?" that the NFL and/or the Player's Association could sue me even though I'm reporting a factual event? Would I be okay if I danced around the names by instead saying "in the Pittsburg-Cincinnati playoff game, Cincinnati's starting QB was knocked out of the game on the first play", or would that still be considered a description of the game? Would it make a difference if I were at the game in person, as apposed to watching the TV broadcast?

[Exapno Mapcase]

No, events that happen during a game are facts that cannot be controlled. Only the exact expression of those facts - the pictures and sound of the broadcast - are covered by the disclaimer.

[Imasquare]

Yep. The NFL has a trademark on the term 'SuperBowl' and charges to allow for-profit enterprises to use it.This is truly capitalism gone mad.

[Imasquare]

Guests have an excuse for not searching, but part of the culture here is that members of several years standing should know to do a search before posting obvious questions that probably have been handled before.
The search feature on this board is not exactly first rate is it? In fact I would say it is quite crude.

[Liberal]

Laws confuse me. Since the Reader is a commercial enterprise (as in SDMB, I guess), why is it okay to mention the Super Bowl here?

[Exapno Mapcase]

Laws confuse me. Since the Reader is a commercial enterprise (as in SDMB, I guess), why is it okay to mention the Super Bowl here?
See posts #16 and #17.

[ataraxy22]

I just googled "Super Bowl Sale." There are many, many businesses using that term. Is the NFL pursuing all of them to get them to cease and desist? If not, does this mean that they are not vigorously defending their trademark?

[don't ask]

Surely this is a situation where the NFL is simply bluffing everyone. It is hard to imagine that they could get any court to uphold acircumstance like the OP. The use of the words Super Bowl serve merely to identify the objects on offer.

Do the NFL have legislation to support their position like the Olympic trademarks protection by statute 36 U.S.C. 220506(c)?

[bobkitty]

I just googled "Super Bowl Sale." There are many, many businesses using that term. Is the NFL pursuing all of them to get them to cease and desist? If not, does this mean that they are not vigorously defending their trademark?

Not to mention the local radio station I listen to, which is far removed from the location of the Super Bowl, using the phrase "Super Bowl Saturday" to play up today's out-of-studio broadcast. And in every promo the morning DJs have said "Yes, we know it's Super Bowl Sunday, but we're just playing around.."

Of course, it's a very tiny local station, and chances are no one else is actually listening to it.

[Mr2001]

I just googled "Super Bowl Sale." There are many, many businesses using that term. Is the NFL pursuing all of them to get them to cease and desist? If not, does this mean that they are not vigorously defending their trademark?
If it does, then Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and every other car company must be guilty of the same thing. Just check any newspaper's classified ads, any day of the week, and you'll see those companies' trademarks used dozens of times without permission by people who are using the trademarks to make a profit.

Surely this is a situation where the NFL is simply bluffing everyone.
Indeed. I think the NFL is just pulling an SCO: they have enough money and lawyers that they can bully people into not doing something, even when it's perfectly legal.

[David Simmons]

I don't understand the ratyionale here. Certainly Kleenex gets annoyed when people call other tissues "Kleenex", and Xerox gets annoyed when people use the product and company name as a generic verb for "photocopy". That causes the uniqueness of their brand name to be deteriorated, to the point where they might lose that unique name -- like aspirin and cellophane and zipper and adrenaline.

But here people aren't using the name "Super Bowl" to refer to some other big football game -- they're only using it to refer to the one and only Super Bowkl. There's no chance of deteriooration of meaning whatsoever.

Furthermore, nobody else sues to prevent others from using the name -- People talk about "King Kong" climing the "Empire State Building" -- not "the big ape movie" with "the big building in New York". Most people are happy for the publicity. Even the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences, which is touchy about their trasdemark, hasn't stopped people on the radio from talking about "Academy Awards" and "Oscars". so howcum on the radio this morning the DJs had to say "Big Game" instead of "Super Bowl"?I think the thing is that the NFL makes money from the commercial use of the name "Super Bowl" and if people start using it without paying and the NFL doesn't object they might be deemed to have abandoned the name.

[Mr2001]

I think the thing is that the NFL makes money from the commercial use of the name "Super Bowl" and if people start using it without paying and the NFL doesn't object they might be deemed to have abandoned the name.
Thing is, a trademark doesn't give you absolute control over every "commercial use" of the name.

[David Simmons]

Thing is, a trademark doesn't give you absolute control over every "commercial use" of the name.Maybe not but the trademark holder can still write a letter insisting that the product, or whatever, not be used commercially without the permission of the tratemark owner. Whether or not they can make it stick is up to a court somewhere if it goes that far.

[Mr2001]

Maybe not but the trademark holder can still write a letter insisting that the product, or whatever, not be used commercially without the permission of the tratemark owner. Whether or not they can make it stick is up to a court somewhere if it goes that far.
Exactly. Anyone can write a letter insisting on anything.

I don't think this bullying is necessary from the perspective of keeping their trademark. Why would the trademark be considered abandoned just because the NFL didn't try to exert control over the kinds of use they have no legal right to control anyway?

[David Simmons]

Exactly. Anyone can write a letter insisting on anything.

I don't think this bullying is necessary from the perspective of keeping their trademark. Why would the trademark be considered abandoned just because the NFL didn't try to exert control over the kinds of use they have no legal right to control anyway?You can't know a priori that you don't have a legal right in any particular case. Best to not take chances when you have lawyers anyway and postage is cheap.