Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-30-2014, 08:47 AM
Accidental Martyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,143
More info on Super Bowl here:
http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2012...-law-try-both/
(Basically stating what Acsenray said.)
Quote:
So, what is permitted? It is fine to use the term SUPER BOWL in news stories about the game and in conversations about the game. There is a trademark concept called "nominative fair use" that allows others to use a trademarked term when there is simply no better way to refer to it. But that concept does not extend to commercial use of the term.

In summary, you can discuss the Super Bowl and do news stories about the Super Bowl, all while referring to it as the Super Bowl. But any commercials or promotional announcements should avoid use of that trademarked term. It is OK for commercials to refer to it as the "Big Game" or any other term that does not include the words "Super Bowl" or "Super Sunday."
  #52  
Old 01-30-2014, 09:00 AM
Accidental Martyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,143
Also from:
http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2012...-law-try-both/

Quote:
You may have heard that in past years, the NFL tried to stop Super Bowl parties shown on large TV screens. This was an enforcement of the NFL’s copyright in the game. Now, the NFL apparently no longer tries to stop Super Bowl parties unless the proprietor charges admission to see the game.
  #53  
Old 01-30-2014, 12:57 PM
BrotherCadfael is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vermont
Posts: 10,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The paint company is grandfathered in, before the USOC went heavy on their trademark protection. If you wanted to open say an Olympic Hamburger stand, you would get an invitation to sleep with the fishes.
If you stand was on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, and you did not use the five rings or in any other way tie your company or your product to the Games, you would probably win in court - but it might cost a fair amount of time and treasure.
  #54  
Old 01-30-2014, 01:00 PM
etv78 is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Randolph, MA
Posts: 10,554
Reading a Metro (small paper meant to be read in 10 minutes). They didn't say "Super Bowl" either.
  #55  
Old 01-30-2014, 06:02 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 10,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The paint company is grandfathered in, before the USOC went heavy on their trademark protection. If you wanted to open say an Olympic Hamburger stand, you would get an invitation to sleep with the fishes.
Google Olympic Restaurant - there's tons of them.
There's even an Olympic Hamburger in LA.
  #56  
Old 01-30-2014, 07:57 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 17,628
Quote:
There's even an Olympic Hamburger in LA.
It's on the street of the same name. The USOC probably couldn't do anything about that.
  #57  
Old 01-30-2014, 08:36 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherCadfael View Post
If you stand was on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, and you did not use the five rings or in any other way tie your company or your product to the Games, you would probably win in court - but it might cost a fair amount of time and treasure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
Google Olympic Restaurant - there's tons of them.
There's even an Olympic Hamburger in LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
It's on the street of the same name. The USOC probably couldn't do anything about that.

Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1998, 36 U.S.C. §220506, gives rights to the U.S.O.C. way beyond ordinary trademark protection. There are two, very limited exceptions. One is for businesses located on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington and the other is for businesses that have been using the term "Olympic" in their trademarks continuously since before the 1950s.
  #58  
Old 01-30-2014, 11:24 PM
JpnDude is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The paint company is grandfathered in, before the USOC went heavy on their trademark protection. If you wanted to open say an Olympic Hamburger stand, you would get an invitation to sleep with the fishes.
In Japan, there is a chain of shopping centers called Olympic. Check out their logo on the upper left corner of the page.
  #59  
Old 01-31-2014, 12:00 AM
Wolf333 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The paint company is grandfathered in, before the USOC went heavy on their trademark protection. If you wanted to open say an Olympic Hamburger stand, you would get an invitation to sleep with the fishes.


Olympic Burger & Burrito.
  #60  
Old 01-31-2014, 12:13 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JpnDude View Post
In Japan, there is a chain of shopping centers called Olympic. Check out their logo on the upper left corner of the page.

Trademark law, like other kinds of intellectual property law, is on a country-by-country basis. The extent of the protection in any particular country will vary depending on what law it has enacted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post

So what do you think this means? I can only guess. But I have some pretty good guesses --

1. This business has licensed the use of the trademark from the U.S.O.C.

2. This business has been in operation since at least the early 1950s.

3. This business just hasn't been noticed yet and will soon be getting a stern letter.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #61  
Old 01-31-2014, 12:33 AM
pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 48,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Accidental Martyr View Post
Are you saying that a legitimate news outlet pays for the right to use the word Olympics when reporting on the games?
FWIW, the Associated Press Stylebook has an entry for Olymipcs, and all it says is to capitalize it when referring to the international games (but lowercase in generic uses). Super Bowl also has an entry that just says "Super Bowl." There is nothing in the stylebook about avoiding their use, and I've never heard of either phrase being problematic when being used in an editorial context.
  #62  
Old 01-31-2014, 12:34 AM
zoid's Avatar
zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 10,315
4. There could be no reasonable confusion or damage to the USOC or any other party from a few restaurants using Olympic in the name and therefor no basis for a suit.
  #63  
Old 01-31-2014, 12:51 AM
Son of a Rich's Avatar
Son of a Rich is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Barsoom
Posts: 4,335
As Homer would say, "let the baby have his bottle". It's the Puppy Bowl for me
  #64  
Old 01-31-2014, 07:41 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
4. There could be no reasonable confusion or damage to the USOC or any other party from a few restaurants using Olympic in the name and therefor no basis for a suit.

No. This is not a possibility with respect to the Olympics, because as I said, the relevant statute gives extraordinary rights to the U.S.O.C. Specifically, it does not have to show confusion or likelihood of confusion in order to stop you from using "Olympics" or one of their other trademarks.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #65  
Old 01-31-2014, 07:45 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
FWIW, the Associated Press Stylebook has an entry for Olymipcs, and all it says is to capitalize it when referring to the international games (but lowercase in generic uses). Super Bowl also has an entry that just says "Super Bowl." There is nothing in the stylebook about avoiding their use, and I've never heard of either phrase being problematic when being used in an editorial context.

I'm not sure why you would expect the AP style book to tell you to avoid using trademarks in an editorial context. There is pretty much zero chance that a trademark appearing in a news story will constitute a trademark violation.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #66  
Old 01-31-2014, 08:41 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoid View Post
4. There could be no reasonable confusion or damage to the USOC or any other party from a few restaurants using Olympic in the name and therefor no basis for a suit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
No. This is not a possibility with respect to the Olympics, because as I said, the relevant statute gives extraordinary rights to the U.S.O.C. Specifically, it does not have to show confusion or likelihood of confusion in order to stop you from using "Olympics" or one of their other trademarks.
This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in San Francisco Arts and Athletics v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987). The U.S.O.C. has no obligation to show likelihood of confusion in order to stop an unauthorized use of the term "Olympic." The Supreme Court decision was later incorporated into the Ted Stevens Act.

Last edited by Acsenray; 01-31-2014 at 08:42 AM.
  #67  
Old 01-31-2014, 08:55 AM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I'm not sure why you would expect the AP style book to tell you to avoid using trademarks in an editorial context. There is pretty much zero chance that a trademark appearing in a news story will constitute a trademark violation.
Another cite that journalists have no reason to avoid the words.
  #68  
Old 01-31-2014, 09:36 AM
LawMonkey is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 4,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of a Rich View Post
As Homer would say, "let the baby have his bottle". It's the Puppy Bowl for me
You mean the Big Puppy Playtime--I hear those Animal Planet lawyers are fierce.
  #69  
Old 01-31-2014, 10:22 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Son of a Rich View Post
As Homer would say, "let the baby have his bottle". It's the Puppy Bowl for me
It can be both. The Puppy Bowl is on 3-5 PM EST, the Superb Owl kickoff isn't until 6:30 or so.
  #70  
Old 01-31-2014, 10:44 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
Another cite that journalists have no reason to avoid the words.

Not really though. The style book isn't designed to give advice on avoiding liability in trademark law.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #71  
Old 01-31-2014, 10:52 AM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Not really though. The style book isn't designed to give advice on avoiding liability in trademark law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
There is nothing in the stylebook about avoiding their use, and I've never heard of either phrase being problematic when being used in an editorial context.
The stylebook does recommend against using some words or phrases in certain contexts, like if they are offensive, and it says reporters should use generic equivalents (bandage vs. Band-Aid) unless a specific trademark is necessary to a story. There's no advice to that end in the Super Bowl entry.
  #72  
Old 01-31-2014, 11:46 AM
joebuck20 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,969
Speaking of Colbert, I'm loving the over-top-intros for his Superb Owl episodes this week that feature him screaming and breathing fire.
  #73  
Old 01-31-2014, 12:18 PM
pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 48,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Not really though. The style book isn't designed to give advice on avoiding liability in trademark law.
True. But it does dispense legal advice in terms of libel law, so I'd be a little surprised if they let the trademark law implications slip by the radar for the last, oh, however many decades.

Still, you're right, that's not proof. Has a news agency every gotten hassled for using "Super Bowl" in an editorial context? I haven't seen it cited yet in this thread. It seems to me that it would me somewhat at odds with freedom of the press. After all, newspapers aren't required to Photoshop out trademarks in photographs, and they write stories on trademarked items all the time. How could you write the news if you couldn't refer to a company's trademarked items?
  #74  
Old 01-31-2014, 01:08 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
True. But it does dispense legal advice in terms of libel law, so I'd be a little surprised if they let the trademark law implications slip by the radar for the last, oh, however many decades.
It is specifically written as a style book and libel manual. It is not designed to deal with other kinds of legal issues. It lets all trademark (and contract and property and civil procedure and every other kind of law) slip by the radar. It's not a comprehensive legal manual for journalism.

Quote:
Has a news agency every gotten hassled for using "Super Bowl" in an editorial context? I haven't seen it cited yet in this thread.
You won't see a cite because it simply doesn't happen. It's a very settled area of the law.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #75  
Old 01-31-2014, 01:21 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 29,302
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
I'm not sure why you would expect the AP style book to tell you to avoid using trademarks in an editorial context. There is pretty much zero chance that a trademark appearing in a news story will constitute a trademark violation.
When I subscribed to the Columbia Journalism Review, they would periodically print a list of trademarked words and their generic equivalents. For example, you might be writing an article that mentions that a body was found in a dumpster. But "Dumpster" is, or was, a trademark. If the specific container you're referring to isn't actually one from that company, they would suggest using the generic equivalent. (And even when you do use the trademark, I believe you're supposed to phrase it like, "Dumpster brand waste container," using the trademark as an adjective and not a noun. But it's been years since I kept up with this stuff.)

Last edited by Dewey Finn; 01-31-2014 at 01:21 PM.
  #76  
Old 01-31-2014, 02:26 PM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 13,029
I'm not a sports fan and I think the whole thing is silly. But a local radio station is doing something funny, they talk about the super bowl on the air but they bleep "super bowl" out like it's profanity.
  #77  
Old 01-31-2014, 04:11 PM
Accidental Martyr is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
I'm not a sports fan and I think the whole thing is silly. But a local radio station is doing something funny, they talk about the super bowl on the air but they bleep "super bowl" out like it's profanity.
Why? As it has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, there is no problem using the term Super Bowl unless it is used in conjunction with advertising a product that isn't licensed by the NFL.
  #78  
Old 01-31-2014, 04:35 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477

Don't call it the S-p-rb-wl...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
When I subscribed to the Columbia Journalism Review, they would periodically print a list of trademarked words and their generic equivalents. For example, you might be writing an article that mentions that a body was found in a dumpster. But "Dumpster" is, or was, a trademark. If the specific container you're referring to isn't actually one from that company, they would suggest using the generic equivalent.
To the extent that journalists would prefer to use generic terms, it is in the interest of accuracy, not because it's a legal problem to use a brand name.

Quote:
(And even when you do use the trademark, I believe you're supposed to phrase it like, "Dumpster brand waste container," using the trademark as an adjective and not a noun.

There is no legal reason to have such a rule. And I've never seen a style guide for journalists that mandates "X brand Y" form. It sounds stupid and there's no reason for it. If a newspaper was being picky, they would say "X Y," as in "Dumpster waste container." But if it is genuinely a Dumpster brand container, then there's no problem calling it a "Dumpster," without further verbiage.

Now, the trademark owner might prefer you to say "X brand Y," and they might even send you a letter saying so, but no journalist need heed such a request.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.

Last edited by Acsenray; 01-31-2014 at 04:36 PM.
  #79  
Old 01-31-2014, 04:37 PM
Marley23 is offline
I Am the One Who Bans
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 78,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
And even when you do use the trademark, I believe you're supposed to phrase it like, "Dumpster brand waste container," using the trademark as an adjective and not a noun. But it's been years since I kept up with this stuff.
I've never seen this. It would be distracting and weird.
  #80  
Old 01-31-2014, 04:47 PM
Cerridwyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42

The Catch of the Day...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
...I should note that the last fifteen minutes of S-p-rb-wl I saw was Jerry Rice making The Catch, which was thrilling, but absolutely nothing could make me turn on a TV or go where one is on that day...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Uhhhh.... that wasn't Jerry Rice and that wasn't the Superb Owl.

How dare you, sir!
Raveman is right. But there were several "The Catch"'s(<--LOL). Maybe you can find the one you thought you were talking about, AB.
  #81  
Old 01-31-2014, 05:21 PM
pulykamell is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 48,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
You won't see a cite because it simply doesn't happen. It's a very settled area of the law.
Oh, okay. We're on the same side of the discussion. I thought for some reason you were arguing the opposite. My bad.
  #82  
Old 01-31-2014, 08:48 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post
This is a huge part of the answer. The NFL has an Official everything and it needs those sponsorships to mean something. If being the Official Left-Handed Supermarket of Super Bowl XLVIII doesn't mean anything because any company can promote itself using the name of the game, companies won't pay the NFL for those sponsorships.
Sponsorships already are supposed to mean something. They mean that the owner of the trademark advocates for the product in question. That's the definition of a sponsorship. The entire reason for protecting a trademark is so that you don't seem to be sponsoring something you are not.

But, the thing is, there are a lot of situations where you can use a trademark and clearly not be claiming that you are sponsored by its owner. Especially since, if you are officially sponsored, they always are very vocal about that: "the official ____ of Super Bowl ___." No one thinks a Super Bowl sale at your local grocers is sponsored by the NFL any more than they think that the Roman Catholic Church sponsors Christmas sales. And, even if they did, it's really easy to clear up that misconception by adding words like "unofficial" or other disclaimers.

I still don't see how the mere use of the trademark actually hurts the NFL's interests, except because of the way trademark law is set up in this country. And even that doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation, since, as stated upthread, they weren't nearly so aggressive in protecting it before.

Because if companies are really paying all that money for the right to say the word "Super Bowl," they are idiots. I mean, I thought at least they got the ability to advertise during the game. I didn't think they were paying the NFL to advertise for them.

Unless, of course, the NFL is actually counting on the publicity the game gets from the trademark fights...
  #83  
Old 01-31-2014, 09:08 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
It's free riding in the NFL's good will. Your bar or pizzeria has no association with the NFL, but it's trying to draw in interest and custom by flashing the NFL's trademark in front of potential customers. When across the street is a bar or pizzeria that is actually associated with the NFL. They're paying for the association. Why should you get to use it? It does hurt the NFL's interests because it damages the value of actual sponsorship. It's really not much different than using pictures of Michael Jordan to promote Adidas when he has a relationship with Nike.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #84  
Old 01-31-2014, 10:18 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
"the official ____ of Super Bowl ___."
The idea of sponsorship is not limited to this kind of wording, and for good reason. Just putting two things next to each other can imply sponsorship.
  #85  
Old 02-02-2014, 06:23 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marley23 View Post


It's Superb Owl Sunday, but alas, the NWO is unable to celebrate!
  #86  
Old 02-02-2014, 06:32 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,263
I also posted that comic over here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...86#post9811586


..if anyone cares!
  #87  
Old 02-02-2014, 07:50 PM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 22,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post
I think that stores should announce that they're having a Superb Owl sale.


It'd be a natural for Hooters to have a Superb Owl party.
A car dealer here in Tucson took out radio ads announcing a "Superb Owl" sale.
  #88  
Old 02-02-2014, 08:03 PM
picunurse is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 11,625
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post
I think that stores should announce that they're having a Superb Owl sale.


It'd be a natural for Hooters to have a Superb Owl party.
Wouldn't that be Superb OOwl?
  #89  
Old 02-02-2014, 08:27 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by picunurse View Post
Wouldn't that be Superb OOwl?


God damnit, upstaged again!
  #90  
Old 02-03-2014, 12:49 AM
drastic_quench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,173
Yesterday, I heard two different nationally syndicated FM radio shows/stations call it the Super Bowl. They were Saturday Night Online and Jack FM. The former even declared something about it being the home of Super Bowl pre-something or other.
  #91  
Old 02-05-2014, 12:13 AM
Cerridwyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 42

Use of Super Bowl for a Sale


Quote:
Originally Posted by Amateur Barbarian View Post
I find it bizarre that the Big Game Stupidbowl Ad Bowl Superbowl can't be called by its right name without licensing permission...

...SUPERBOWL SUPERBOWL SUPERBOWL THERE I FUCKING SAID IT COME AND GET ME YOU TRADEMARK-COPPERS! is just about the most sickening example of mass hysteria/psychosis I can imagine...

But being forbidden to say The Word without permission... is positively Soviet if not Orwellian.

(I should note that this is my third attempt at posting this; the two before vanished unrecoverably when I tried to enter the little trade mark symbols. Hmm.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalMeacham View Post
I think that stores should announce that they're having a Superb Owl sale.

It'd be a natural for Hooters to have a Superb Owl party.
LOL, CalMeacham, "Superb Owl party".

But Cal is correct about changing words around, sorta. Professional and collegiate team logos/logotypes or official team names cannot be used as an endorsement, promotion or in any other manner in print ads, unless it is in an officially sponsored capacity. Typically, “officially” licensed events are required to show a legal disclaimer in the ad identifying copyright and licensing ownership. However, it is perfectly fine to use an official team name in a sentence or statement that may appear in an ad, but the use of “TM” or ® is prohibited in this instance.

You cannot use ”Monday Night Football” in ads alone, but you could add "Party" along with it. Or just call it the Night Football Game on Monday.

The words “Super Bowl” or “Superbowl” or its logo/logotype cannot appear in ads at all, unless it is in an officially sponsored event. Or you can rearrange the wording: Super Football Bowl.

The "Show" button has just sports on your "Straight Dope" tab & "Legal Guidelines" for sports & more will appear on the next tab.

SPOILER:
SPORTS
TEAM LOGO USE
Professional and collegiate team logos/logotypes or official team names cannot be used as an endorsement, promotion or in any other manner in print ads, unless it is in an officially sponsored capacity. Neighborhood bars and some casinos promote “team” sports events such as “Monday Night Football,” etc., and often request the use of team logos and official team names in their ads. It is strictly forbidden to use official pro or collegiate team logos or team names in ads unless it is an “officially” licensed event. Typically, “officially” licensed events are required to show a legal disclaimer in the ad identifying copyright and licensing ownership. However, it is perfectly fine to use an official team name in a sentence or statement that may appear in an ad, but the use of “TM” or ® is prohibited in this instance.

OK Example: “Watch the Chicago Bulls game on our big screen.”
In this case, the team name must not appear in the team logotype or its type font.

MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL
You cannot use ”Monday Night Football” in ads. However, you can use it if you add “Party” or some other descriptive at the end.

OK Example: “Monday Night Football Party,” “Monday Night Football Tailgate Party,” etc.

SUPER BOWL
The words “Super Bowl” or “Superbowl” or its logo/logotype cannot appear in ads at all, unless it is in an officially sponsored event. However, you are permitted to make written reference to “ The Big Game,” “Super Football,” “The Big Bowl Game,” “Super Sunday,” etc.

MARCH MADNESS
The NCAA and R-J Corporate Attorney sternly warns against using the words “NCAA”, “March Madness” or “Final Four” or their logos in ads, in any way, shape or form, unless it is an “officially sponsored” event.


The words “March” and “Madness” cannot be used together, nor can any relationship to “March Madness”, the annual NCAA basketball event, be implied.


However, “March Madness” can be separated by another word:

Example #1: “March Mayhem Madness”, or “March Markdown Madness” is ok as a phrase, but in this instance should NOT picture a basketball, basketball hoop or other basketball imagery because it implies an association to “March Madness”.


Example #2: You can use creative copy variations such as:

“March Mayhem”

“March Clearance”

“Mad Price Markdown”

“Mad Zany March Sale”

“Mad March Sale”

“Mad March Markdowns”

These types of word combinations can display basketballs, basketball hoops or other basketball imagery.

If an advertiser provides an Electronic Ad displaying questionable usage of NCAA, March Madness, or Final Four or their logos, Ad Operations Managers are to alert the account executive so it can be corrected through the agency who submitted it, if need be.

The R-J cannot show/picture any “promotional product” that displays the words NCAA, March Madness or Final Four or their logos, or displays any other official sport team logo and/or logotype.

Please remember that licensing restrictions prohibit the use of any official sports event, sports organization or team logo and/or logotype in ads, unless it is an “officially sponsored” event (which is seldom the case with local advertisers). Official sponsors might include Papa John’s Pizza, Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, Burger King, Coke, Pepsi, Budweiser, Coors or the NCAA itself to name a few, and can be identified by the legal disclaimer required to appear on such advertising.

If you spot an ad containing questionable reference to NCAA, March Madness or Final Four, please bring it to the attention of any Ad Operations Manager.

Advertisers can visit NCAAsports.com or MarchMadness.com websites for more information on this guideline if needed.

*These guidelines do not apply for Editorial usage.

SPORTS ASSOCIATIONS
Use of “NFL,” “NBA,” “MLB,” “NHL” or “PGA” or its logo is prohibited in any ads produced by the Review-Journal, unless it is an officially sponsored event. Where an advertiser would want to use these abbreviations, they should be replaced with the word “Pro”.
  #92  
Old 02-05-2014, 06:26 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 36,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cerridwyn View Post
Typically, “officially” licensed events are required to show a legal disclaimer in the ad identifying copyright and licensing ownership.
.



Required by contract, perhaps, not by law.

Quote:
However, it is perfectly fine to use an official team name in a sentence or statement that may appear in an ad, but the use of “TM” or ® is prohibited in this instance.
I don't think they can enforce this prohibition against someone with which they don't have a contract. Legally, anyone can use these symbols, but it only has significance when the trademark rights holder or its licensee uses them.



Quote:
OK Example: “Monday Night Football Party,” “Monday Night Football Tailgate Party,” etc.]

As a matter of trademark law, just adding the word "party" isn't necessarily going to get you off the hook.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #93  
Old 02-07-2014, 09:31 PM
TBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9,067
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
It's Superb Owl Sunday, but alas, the NWO is unable to celebrate!

Hollywood HulkTM Hogan in ruins!


(though I'm not sure why as I don't see anything nWo in that link)



Hulk is a registered trademark of Marvel Comics
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017