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.
This is truly capitalism gone mad.
The search feature on this board is not exactly first rate is it? In fact I would say it is quite crude.
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.
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?
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©?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.