Army Officially Opposes Vegas Golden Knights Trademark

[MNNumbers]

I just think this is so amusing and ironic. We all sat here a couple of years ago thinking about this very problem, because of Foley's West Point background, and we saw the quote about hoping they could have a flyover {But it got a bit dicey to make it happen...............we all wondered what that meant.....}

I mean, there were lots of flags this COULD happen.

Only in NHL could everyone be so set on having it the way they wanted, and so money and power hungry, that no one would see this happening....

It would have been so easy to reach out to West Point, and just ask......



Oh well,

Cue Sparky Chewbarky and his "Aces" demo.....

 

[tony d]

Golden Knights was always a ? name anyway. Think they end up shortening it to the Knights before long regardless of the result of this thing with Army.

 

[Cane mutiny]

I liked LV Desert Knights better anyway. Means more.
Edit...if They were going with Knights, which I didn't like anyway.

 

[Svechhammer]

Hmm... On one hand, I get the objection, but on the other, Army did allow the University of Central Florida to use the Golden Knights moniker unopposed from 1993 to 2004, so there is a precedent in place to allow Vegas to keep it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

They can just change the color. The Vegas Brown, Pink or Yellow Knights.

No, a different colour is not sufficient. Changing McDo's logo colour from golden yellow to another colour or a mix of colours or patterns would not allow another entity to use the shape of the logo.

 

[Archangel]

No one tell the Army that the term Golden Knights dates back to the crusades and was first used by a Pope to describe the Knights Templar. "they are our Golden Knights" in about 1099 to 1105. Depending on the source

 

[sabresfan65]

How about this for marketing? The Knights win the Stanley Cup this season and when they lift the cup in the air become the Silver Knights!!

 

[BrindAmours Army]

Likelihood of confusion is not a high bar.

The Army kinda has to do this. If you aren't protective of your trademarks, you can lose them.

If McPhee had kept his mouth shut about the name and colors I don't think the Army would be successful with this. Considering what he said, it could very well go in favor of the Army.

Disclaimer: Not a trademark attorney yet, but I've done some trademark work.

 

[Sparty]

Because then you run into trademark issues with the OHL's London Knights.

Did the Springfield Thunderbirds run into trademark issues with the Seattle Thunderbirds?

 

[RDTBay4]

I think the fact that McPhee specifically mentioned the Army Golden Knights is a factor in this suit.

 

[cutchemist42]

I think a majority of this board pursuing the name was silly. Change the name to Las Vegas Knights and be done with this.

If Foley respects his alma meter and institution enough, he should just move on.

 

[BattleBorn]

I don't think any of this is a huge issue.

If you're a trademark holder to the name Golden Knights, you've got to protest other people using the name Golden Knights or you can lose your trademark protection. The USPTO doesn't enforce trademark rules, the holders of the trademarks that might get diminished by other uses of the name do.

These things happen all the time and are usually worked out without legal action. The two parties get together and come to an agreement, usually money is exchanged, and then people move on with their lives. It's happened in the sports world in the recent past with the Seahawks using Texas A&M's "12th Man" stuff. I just wonder if the Department of Defense has the ability/desire to take a licensing fee/payoff for VGK to use the name.

 

[cutchemist42]

8

Other than the guys in the Army, and maybe their lawyers, probably not.

I don't really understand this objection. I don't really see the basis for confusion either, except perhaps for the extremely feeble-minded.

I say just pay off London and be done with it.

 

[cutchemist42]

Cant copy it from my phone on the new system, but Chris Creamer on twitter from sportslogos.net is doing a good job reporting on it. Check it out.

Basically the lawyer he contacted said its pretty identical to Jaguar's case against the Jacksonville Jags logo and scheme being too close to theirs. It might even be worse in this case as they have admitted where the inspiration came from.

I just think if Foley respected the institution enough, he should have just asked. I dont think this is a good look on his part. I mean, the Jets asked the RCAF....

 

[Brick City]

I mean, they play in the Silver State. Wouldn't Silver Knights actually make more sense?

 

[Llama19]

Cant copy it from my phone on the new system, but Chris Creamer on twitter from sportslogos.net is doing a good job reporting on it. Check it out.

Basically the lawyer he contacted said its pretty identical to Jaguar's case against the Jacksonville Jags logo and scheme being too close to theirs. It might even be worse in this case as they have admitted where the inspiration came from.

I just think if Foley respected the institution enough, he should have just asked. I dont think this is a good look on his part. I mean, the Jets asked the RCAF....

 

[ChanceVegas]

I wonder if a settlement can be worked out for some form of free advertising/sponsorship. Granted the Army has a ton of money, but they also spend a ton of money on advertising during sporting events. Most is NFL and college football, but this may be a way for an easy "in" into the NHL market. I can see a whole lot of potential marketing tie-ins here, and I am sure Foley would jump at that.

In light of the fact the Foley is really trying to pay homage to the Army here, I would be pretty surprised if this does not get settled and VGK retains their name.

 

[gtrower]

Colleges run into this constantly with high schools and middle schools using their logos and mascots. Usually the colleges license them the rights for minimal cost so they can still own/protect the trademark while allowing an entity that won't compete with them to use it. But you inevitably run into a school that uses it without asking, gets sued by the college, and then the college gets berated by the public for bullying a prep school when all they're doing is protecting an asset that was essentially stolen.

"...we are not aware of a single complaint from anyone attending our games that they were expecting to see the parachute team and not a professional hockey game..."

That comment is alarming. It shows a complete lack of understanding of trademarks, how they work, and how they benefit those who own them. Which basically shows a lack of understanding of business in general. Whoever wrote that should not be working in a professional sports team's front office.

Branding is a HUGE part of business. If you have a trademark you defend the trademark. Period. Otherwise there's no point in having it.

 

[gtrower]

Also, how on earth would a professional sports team want to pick a mascot in which they didn't own the trademark and didn't have an agreement in place with the owners?? What happens when an expansion MLB team in the area uses the same name? Now they have to rely on the Army to defend their trademark? How did they let this happen. Ridiculous.

 

[Evil Janney]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that the government (or a department in the government) is allowed a trademark patent?

From my understanding I thought all government generated material (with the exception of confidential material), was fair use public domain. You go on sites like whitehouse.gov or voanews.com, its all public domain.

 

[MetalheadPenguinsFan]

How ridiculous

 

[Spartachat]

I always confuse the Toronto Maple Leafs with Maple Leaf sausages.

 

[newfy]

But the CHicago Blackhawks is perfectly fine? Seems odd

 

[BattleBorn]

Does it seem odd to anyone else that the government (or a department in the government) is allowed a trademark patent?

From my understanding I thought all government generated material (with the exception of confidential material), was fair use public domain. You go on sites like whitehouse.gov or voanews.com, its all public domain.

At the same time, you don't want someone selling health insurance using the US Dept of Health and Human Services logo.

There was a thing a few years ago where the government was trying to trademark the term G.I. Bill to keep some less than honest colleges from using the GI Bill to advertise. It kind of makes sense in those cases.

 

[Evil Janney]

Found something interesting on the Library of Congress website:

"No permission is needed to copy public domain works; however, use of public domain works may nevertheless be restricted by licensing terms or by principles of privacy or publicity law or other applicable law."

I wonder if there are laws set in place to thwart manipulation of logos or likeliness of government initiates or agencies. Rendering the need for trademarks frivolous.

I don't know, its tricky. If a private entity profits over the exploitation of, say a logo, then shouldn't there be context along with it? And, is it a matter of deception, to the college example you provided?

Plus, who knows, maybe this may be a classic example of the government wanting to set precedence, so that instances like the GI Bill example you provided don't occur again.