Club clamping down on use of the crest

[SurreySeagulls]

So what if your avatar is a picture of yourself in the club top?

Oh and I'm using my club badge under the terms of fair use!

hey your user name is similar to mine. how dare you infringe my trademark

 

[Jack Daniels]

I don't move in those circles. He'd probably charge me for drinking my tea anyway.

Lmfao at this

 

[portlock seagull]

The club should stop picking on the little guys like NSC and get on with sueing the big boys like Hollister clothing - bloody liberty!

 

[Hamilton]

So do you think www.seagulls.tv is safe?

No advertising on it at all, except for British Caledonian Airways and Tamplin's Ales!

The main issue with a site like this is the name (seagulls.tv) as this will be seen to be in conflict with seagulls player - even though you are basically streaming publicly available content. The site is using an old logo which will still be IP that belongs to the club.

How many users the site gets will be an issue. Is it traffic that deters or bypasses users that may be going to the business site.

It would be a hard hearted business that went after a site like this.

 

[ROSM]

It would be a hard hearted business that went after a site like this.

So on curent evidence, expect a letter in the morning!

 

[Screaming J]

The club should stop picking on the little guys like NSC and get on with sueing the big boys like Hollister clothing - bloody liberty!

Isn't that why they changed the direction of the Seagull, otherwise they might have had trouble with Hollister who've been using it since the 1920s?

 

[mune ni kamome]

This will only apply to individuals or organizations trying to make commercial gain from the use of the logo. It will also apply where an individual or organization is bring the reputation of the brand into question or misrepresenting the club.

So, if you were to produce t-shirts en masse and sell them then you would be using the IP without permission. If you were to produce one t-shirt with the logo and inappropriate language associated with the logo, and if this was then given publicity, then you would be liable. If you were to create a new logo that was in some way similar and if you were to use similar language or labeling, then you would be liable.

You are not going to be liable for using the logo as your avatar. Nor are you likely to be liable for printing the logo onto an item of clothing.

Liability for misuse comes into force where the brand reputation is damaged or where individuals/organizations are deemed to be profiteering from use of the IP without permissions.

That's a relief then. No need to shoot all the seagulls flying about making a mockery of our intellectual property.

 

[clapham_gull]

This will only apply to individuals or organizations trying to make commercial gain from the use of the logo. It will also apply where an individual or organization is bring the reputation of the brand into question or misrepresenting the club.

So, if you were to produce t-shirts en masse and sell them then you would be using the IP without permission. If you were to produce one t-shirt with the logo and inappropriate language associated with the logo, and if this was then given publicity, then you would be liable. If you were to create a new logo that was in some way similar and if you were to use similar language or labeling, then you would be liable.

You are not going to be liable for using the logo as your avatar. Nor are you likely to be liable for printing the logo onto an item of clothing.

Liability for misuse comes into force where the brand reputation is damaged or where individuals/organizations are deemed to be profiteering from use of the IP without permissions.

Can't comment on the Albion logo so I won't. But generally (and more on the basis of the Premier League / Football logos) I did read somewhere that the LandLord winning the court battle over buying live football from somewhere else in Europe has forced rights holders to start looking closely at on screen graphics.

Can't remember the specifics but protecting on screen graphics and that includes the web is going to be more important.

 

[Surrey Seagull]

hey your user name is similar to mine. how dare you infringe my trademark

My name has the all important space and is singular rather than plural. Or I'm a member of the SurreySeagulls tribute act...I forget which.

 

[Whim]

Isn't that why they changed the direction of the Seagull, otherwise they might have had trouble with Hollister who've been using it since the 1920s?

Hollister was launched in 2000. Their history is as fake the people who wear their clothes.

 

[Hamilton]

So on curent evidence, expect a letter in the morning!

Ha!

If the club wants all the expense that goes with chasing after cases that aren't really affecting it, then yes.

It's only going to go after infringement of IP that damages its trade.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

It's a bit weird that humans seem to have ownership of the direction a seagull can fly.

 

[timco]

Ha!

If the club wants all the expense that goes with chasing after cases that aren't really affecting it, then yes.

It's only going to go after infringement of IP that damages its trade.

After my conversation today I suspect that view is wrong, they will be going after any use of the logo where it is unlicensed. They even have an employee whose job it is to do this.

 

[timco]

BTW she sounded very relieved when I just said, OK and did not argue.

 

[Jack Daniels]

Hope barber don't play on pokerstars then. I am not allowed to change my logo again.

Can't see me playing the same stakes as bloom. Think he is a bit beyond 0.10 - 0.25c

 

[portlock seagull]

After my conversation today I suspect that view is wrong, they will be going after any use of the logo where it is unlicensed. They even have an employee whose job it is to do this.

As I said, point them to hollister-clearly they waited until we were homeless and at our lowest weakest brand ebb before launching in 1999/2000. If they launched today, I've no doubt they'd have a Prawn, Ox or Eagle fronting then up.

 

[severnside gull]

bit worried I might be stopped on the way into the stadium next season and refused entry until I have laser removal surgery on my tattoos

 

[DumLum]

Does this apply to tattoos?

Yep, they will sue your arses....literally for those with the tattoos on their bums.

 

[beorhthelm]

... The site is using an old logo which will still be IP that belongs to the club.

i dont believe this is the case, they haven't sought to protect the image so it loses the trademark protection. if they even applied for it back then, which is unlikly. you'll recall that Arsenal changed their logo a few years ago specifically to be able to protect the new one and stop the tat merchants copying it. the club have no right to the term "seagulls" in relation to football unless they have registerd the trademark, and since its been in use for so long as nickname i dont think it would stand up anyway.

 

[Seagulls over Essex]

I use sky sports score centre on iPad and iPhone, in both cases the old shield crest comes up rather than the new circular one. I would have thought the Albion would be all over that asking sky to ensure the latest brand was displayed, especially as it would have cost a fair bit to change.

Similarly, Bet365 uses the old shield crest on its team stats page (or at least it still did last season). Surprised they have not been asked to update it.