rajncajn Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 The greed of the NFL seems to know no bounds. NFL orders shops to stop selling 'Who Dat' gear by Katie Moore / Eyewitness News Posted on January 27, 2010 at 9:57 PM Updated today at 6:58 AM ****** NEW ORLEANS - As the Saints' appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase "Who Dat." But who really owns "Who Dat"? Does anyone? Who is a “Who Dat?” What is a “Who Dat?” Who owns the phrase, "Who Dat?" They're all questions Fleurty Girl t-shirt shop owner Lauren Thom is being forced to answer. “The NFL is not a company that I want to rock the boat with, but I definitely want to look into it further to see what my rights are,” Thom said. Two weeks ago, Thom got a cease and desist order from the NFL. “They're telling me not to print anymore shirts and to get rid of the inventory that I have because it says the words 'Who dat' and it has a gold fleur de lis on the shirt,” she said. But Thom’s t-shirt isn’t the only one the NFL has a problem with. Storyville t-shirt shop also got a cease and desist order for two of their t-shirts. “I really thought the 'Who Dat' was something that belonged to the people more than to the Saints or to the NFL or anything else,” said Storyville co-owner Josh Harvey. According to NFL spokesman Dan Masonson, "Any unauthorized use of the Saints colors and other [marks] designed to create the illusion of an affiliation with the Saints is equally a violation of the Saints trademark rights because it allows a third party to 'free ride' by profiting from confusion of the team's fans, who want to show support for the Saints." Loyola Law School intellectual property professor Ray Arieaux said the ownership of 'Who Dat' may be a gray area. “Is there some unfair trade taking place because maybe the public does associate that with the Saints? The question is what does the public associate with 'Who Dat,'" Arieaux asked. And the NFL isn't the only company claiming ownership of the phrase. Sal and Steve Monistere recorded a version of "When the Saints Go Marching In" in the early eighties and incorporated the "Who Dat" chant into it. Aaron Neville recorded it, and performed with our own Eric Paulsen in an early '80's video version. Because the song helped create the widespread use of the “Who Dat” chant, the Monisteres and their company, Who Dat, inc., say they own "Who Dat." “If they really do own it, what they want to do is, we'll come out together and have a shirt that says ‘Defend Who Dat.’ Because it started by the fans and its for the fans,” Thom said. Some say "Who Dat" came from an 1890's jazz song, but when it comes to modern-day ownership of "Who Dat," Arieaux said the more sources of it, the less likely it is that anyone owns it, and ownership all depends on what people think of when they see or hear "Who Dat." “Do they think about fans supporting or do they think about, oh, it's something really from the Saints and the NFL? And I don't know the answer to that,” Arieaux said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Sometimes you just have to laugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdrudge Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Sometimes you just have to laugh I'm sure laughing isn't comforting Lauren Thom of Fleurty Girl and Josh Harvey of Storyville. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twiley Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I'm sure laughing isn't comforting Lauren Thom of Fleurty Girl and Josh Harvey of Storyville. Exactly, what a bunch of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MustOfBeenDrunk Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I'm sure laughing isn't comforting Lauren Thom of Fleurty Girl and Josh Harvey of Storyville. My "sometimes you just have to laugh" was in reference to how stupid and petty the NFL can be sometimes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddahj Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 My "sometimes you just have to laugh" was in reference to how stupid and petty the NFL can be sometimes +1 on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myhousekey Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 The No Fun League is at it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I think in this case, "Who dat" is the the secondary issue with the NFL. I think the primary reason is they are protecting the Saints colors and logo which the team is entitled to licenseing fees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Who Dat? Who Dey? Just Win, Baby The NFL owns these phrases now when they're written in the respective teams colors? Garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loaf Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 nice of you to censor out the "Logo" part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpholmes Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 nice of you to censor out the "Logo" part Wasn't intentional. I just think a team like the Saints, that uses a generic logo like the fleur de lis - it is much harder to try and penalize. Because the fact of the matter is, it is a very generic and widely used logo. And if someone wants to wear a gold one on a black shirt... Just seems like a bit of a stretch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 nice of you to censor out the "Logo" part The NFL will have a tough time with the fleur de lis. That is a symbol in New Orleans that FAR predates the Saints. The symbol is everywhere in this city and just about anyone who knows anything about New Orleans will correct you when you call it the Saints logo. Yes they have it on the helmets and spamshirts but the symbol is more than an NFL teams logo. The NFL is opening a can of worms that I think in the end they will wish they would have just left alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 In my opinion the only FDL the NFL has rights over is the type (design) that is on the Saints helmets. Does the NFL own the rights to every "Star"? And to say, stop using "Who Dat" - I guess now the Browns need to stop with the "Woof Woof Woof" chants. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 The NFL will have a tough time with the fleur de lis. That is a symbol in New Orleans that FAR predates the Saints. The symbol is everywhere in this city and just about anyone who knows anything about New Orleans will correct you when you call it the Saints logo. Yes they have it on the helmets and spamshirts but the symbol is more than an NFL teams logo. The NFL is opening a can of worms that I think in the end they will wish they would have just left alone. The intent of the law is to prevent those unaffiliated with a group to profit from an implied affiliation. Whether or not "Who Dat" or some other version of the Fleur is property of the NFL, those making black and gold T-shirts with that design and "Who Dat" on them are absolutely trying to profit off an implied association with the NFL. When guys spend 100s of millions of dollars to buy a team, I'm pretty sure they'd like to know that they alone can make money off T-shirts associated with that team. So, if the NFL loses this case, it's because somebody found a way around the law, not because they are actually in the right. These poor victims are looking to profit off someone else's product. Plain and simple. My suggestion is that they look to try and profit off someone less equipped to beeyauch-slap them for doing so. My guess is that most are rather blinded by the fact that the NFL is a massive, money-making business and are just caught up with the bully element rather than understanding that the real "can of worms" would be opened if the courts were to turn the other cheek in this instance. The simple fact is that these are defacto NO Saints T-Shirts and they're being made by people who aren't licensed to produce them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 The intent of the law is to prevent those unaffiliated with a group to profit from an implied affiliation. Whether or not "Who Dat" or some other version of the Fleur is property of the NFL, those making black and gold T-shirts with that design and "Who Dat" on them are absolutely trying to profit off an implied association with the NFL. When guys spend 100s of millions of dollars to buy a team, I'm pretty sure they'd like to know that they alone can make money off T-shirts associated with that team. So, if the NFL loses this case, it's because somebody found a way around the law, not because they are actually in the right. These poor victims are looking to profit off someone else's product. Plain and simple. My suggestion is that they look to try and profit off someone less equipped to beeyauch-slap them for doing so. My guess is that most are rather blinded by the fact that the NFL is a massive, money-making business and are just caught up with the bully element rather than understanding that the real "can of worms" would be opened if the courts were to turn the other cheek in this instance. The simple fact is that these are defacto NO Saints T-Shirts and they're being made by people who aren't licensed to produce them. I understand where you're coming from - but the NFL is saying that "Who Dat" is their trademark - So if "Who Dat" is an NFL trademark, then "skol", Who Dey, and "America's Team are an NFL trademark also. So what the NFL is telling us that we can't put the words Who Dat on a black shirt. The last time I checked black goes with everything....LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I understand where you're coming from - but the NFL is saying that "Who Dat" is their trademark - So if "Who Dat" is an NFL trademark, then "skol", Who Dey, and "America's Team are an NFL trademark also. So what the NFL is telling us that we can't put the words Who Dat on a black shirt. The last time I checked black goes with everything....LOL No, the NFL is telling a guy he can't make shirts that say "Who Dat?" and have a gold Fleur de Lys on them. Because the author of that story has a point to make, he's trying to make a big deal over who owns "Who Dat?". However, that's not the issue. The issue is that the NFL has a right to control who can and can't sell NFL-related Ts. And a black shirt with a gold Fleur and a saying commonly associated with the Saints on it is most certainly a Saints related T. I would imagine that the burden of proof lies with those making these shirts to explain what, besides the Saints, the t-shirts are talking about. If they can't, it's a straw man argument and a violation of copyright laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilfish2 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 (edited) So I guess a green shirt with a piece of cheese on it with the words "cheese head" below is a violation also Edited January 29, 2010 by neilfish2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 It all adds up to Roger is a pric k and if money is involved the nfl will screw you. If they strike I will not be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 (edited) The intent of the law is to prevent those unaffiliated with a group to profit from an implied affiliation. Whether or not "Who Dat" or some other version of the Fleur is property of the NFL, those making black and gold T-shirts with that design and "Who Dat" on them are absolutely trying to profit off an implied association with the NFL. When guys spend 100s of millions of dollars to buy a team, I'm pretty sure they'd like to know that they alone can make money off T-shirts associated with that team. So, if the NFL loses this case, it's because somebody found a way around the law, not because they are actually in the right. These poor victims are looking to profit off someone else's product. Plain and simple. My suggestion is that they look to try and profit off someone less equipped to beeyauch-slap them for doing so. My guess is that most are rather blinded by the fact that the NFL is a massive, money-making business and are just caught up with the bully element rather than understanding that the real "can of worms" would be opened if the courts were to turn the other cheek in this instance. The simple fact is that these are defacto NO Saints T-Shirts and they're being made by people who aren't licensed to produce them. No, the NFL is telling a guy he can't make shirts that say "Who Dat?" and have a gold Fleur de Lys on them. Because the author of that story has a point to make, he's trying to make a big deal over who owns "Who Dat?". However, that's not the issue. The issue is that the NFL has a right to control who can and can't sell NFL-related Ts. And a black shirt with a gold Fleur and a saying commonly associated with the Saints on it is most certainly a Saints related T. I would imagine that the burden of proof lies with those making these shirts to explain what, besides the Saints, the t-shirts are talking about. If they can't, it's a straw man argument and a violation of copyright laws. Do you lick Rogers balls also? This has been around for years but now that they are in the SB, the nfl is trying to throw their muscle around. Josh is a nice guy and really got blindsided by this and isn't to happy. and the Fleur is a New Orleans symbol not a football symbol Edited January 29, 2010 by SLAYER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I heard that the NFL has sent cease and desist letters to every grocery store in the world that uses paper bags...they are claiming that they own the trade mark for paper bags because of their association with many of their teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Do you lick Rogers balls also? This has been around for years but now that they are in the SB, the nfl is trying to throw their muscle around. Josh is a nice guy and really got blindsided by this and isn't to happy. and the Fleur is a New Orleans symbol not a football symbol Wow, I never realized you were a complete a-hole. Learn something new every day. Just because the victim of copyright infringement happens to be a money-grubbing and massive business doesn't mean it's not copyright infringement. I'm not saying that this is even a smart move on the part of the NFL, just saying that it does seem like they are likely correct in this case and that the author is making it about "Who Dat" when it's really about someone not being allowed to make unlicensed NFL garb. At some point you have to weigh the bad press something like this might earn you vs. the marginal revenue gained by selling more shirts that you get a cut of. However, sports fans always come back and they know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I think it's a question of degree and no, they aren't right. Take that to its extreme and you can say anyone selling anything in New Orleans that's black and gold is "NFL property." BS. They didn't invent or copyright "who dat" so bite me NFL you don't own it through some "implied ownership" BS. Or shouldn't anyway. I'd love to see the courts flip the bird to the NFL on this and will be tempted go puke on their doorstep and then paint it black n gold otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 I heard that the NFL has sent cease and desist letters to every grocery store in the world that uses paper bags...they are claiming that they own the trade mark for paper bags because of their association with many of their teams. lol exactly It's a good thing "aint" isn't really a word or boy would Webster be in trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Next they need to go after all the owners of buildings, fences, and any other thing that has gold Fleurs on it and god forbid if it is on a black background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLAYER Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 For those that know all It is about "Who Dat". The NFL claims they own the trademark and the day after the Saints/Vikings game they filed to register the phrase "Who Dat" with the Florida Department of State. They wany all B&G shirts with that phrase and "Who Dat Nation" to go away. They didn't seem to mind in the years past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.