[rant on]
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/05/barstool-sports-sues-nfl-over-saturdays-are-boys-trademark
OK, one business is suing the NFL because they (the business) had trademarked the words "Saturdays are for the boys". And the NFL started making T-shirts that said "Sundays are for the [Team Name]". So the words in common between these two boil down to "are for the".
So if this silly trademark stands, does that mean that restaurants cannot put up signs that say "Restrooms are for the customers"? After all, it's the same number of words, and the middle three match exactly. No different than the NFL's T-shirt logo.
This whole business of our trademark, copyright and patent system has just gone totally ridiculous. I remember a mandatory learning session that we had to attend at my employer, lead by the lawyers. It was about patents, specifically "preemptive patents". In other words, you don't patent what you plan to do yourself, you speculate on what you think the competitors might want to do in the future, and then patent that. Then squeeze them for royalties later. Or use your preemptive patents to trade for their preemptive patents that they created against you. No joke.
It doesn't matter if you hate the NFL and want to see the little guy stick it to them in this case. The fact that somebody can sue (be they the little guy or the NFL) about stuff like this is ridiculous. Maybe we should make our lawyers wear those stupid white wigs of yesteryear so they can look absurd while arguing the absurd.
Here's a guy who patented a stick:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6360693.html
[/rant off]
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/01/05/barstool-sports-sues-nfl-over-saturdays-are-boys-trademark
OK, one business is suing the NFL because they (the business) had trademarked the words "Saturdays are for the boys". And the NFL started making T-shirts that said "Sundays are for the [Team Name]". So the words in common between these two boil down to "are for the".
So if this silly trademark stands, does that mean that restaurants cannot put up signs that say "Restrooms are for the customers"? After all, it's the same number of words, and the middle three match exactly. No different than the NFL's T-shirt logo.
This whole business of our trademark, copyright and patent system has just gone totally ridiculous. I remember a mandatory learning session that we had to attend at my employer, lead by the lawyers. It was about patents, specifically "preemptive patents". In other words, you don't patent what you plan to do yourself, you speculate on what you think the competitors might want to do in the future, and then patent that. Then squeeze them for royalties later. Or use your preemptive patents to trade for their preemptive patents that they created against you. No joke.
It doesn't matter if you hate the NFL and want to see the little guy stick it to them in this case. The fact that somebody can sue (be they the little guy or the NFL) about stuff like this is ridiculous. Maybe we should make our lawyers wear those stupid white wigs of yesteryear so they can look absurd while arguing the absurd.
Here's a guy who patented a stick:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6360693.html
[/rant off]
