PDA

View Full Version : Football Who Dat? The NFL puts the hammer down.


Mr. Flopnuts
01-30-2010, 07:11 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4871697

NFL claims trademark infringement

NEW ORLEANS -- Who owns "Who Dat?"

Some T-shirt makers are asking that question after they were hit with cease-and-desist letters from the NFL demanding that they stop selling shirts with the traditional cheer of New Orleans Saints fans.

The National Football League says the shirts infringe on a legal trademark it owns. Separately, two brothers and longtime Saints fans claim they own the phrase, which was around before the long-downtrodden team's inception in 1966.

The league said Friday it's not trying to exclude all uses of Who Dat and the fleur-de-lis logo -- just when either is used in combination with other Saints trademarks, like their fleur-de-lis logo and uniform designs.

It seems unclear who, if anyone, owns it. A lot of people believe it belongs to the city and the people.
-- New Orleans shop owner Gabriel Harvey

The chant -- "Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints" -- is often shortened to "Who Dat" on shirts and signs and has been a mainstay at the Superdome since the 1980s. Saints fans, still jubilant after the Saints' win over the Minnesota Vikings for their first Super Bowl appearance, have voiced their dismay on radio talk shows, blogs and Web site posts.

Many say it's something that simply can't be owned.

"How can they put a trademark on something that's been around for 150 years?" said Robert Lauricella, a 50-year-old oil field sales representative. "Just because the Saints have made the Super Bowl, why does everybody have to make a buck?"

Shirts bearing the Saints cheer are big business as the team prepares for the big game against the Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV on Feb. 7 in Miami.

Lauren Thom, owner of the Fleurty Girl T-shirt shop in New Orleans, said Thursday that she recently received a letter from the NFL demanding that she quit selling "Who Dat" shirts.

"I don't mind paying royalties," Thom said. "I just don't know who owns 'Who Dat' or whether it's in the public domain."

The NFL doesn't cut much slack when it believes it owns a trademark. This case is no exception.

In an e-mail, league spokesman Brian McCarthy said the NFL has sent a handful of letters in the past year asking vendors to stop selling "Who Dat" merchandise. The unlicensed shirts led fans to believe the Saints endorsed the product, he said.

"This helps protect the local businesses that are selling legitimate Saints merchandise and also the local printers that are making the licensed Saints apparel," he said.

Meanwhile, WhoDat Inc., controlled by longtime Saints fans and brothers Sal and Steve Monistere, also claims rights to the phrase.

In 1983, Steve Monistere produced the song "Who Dat Say They Gonna Beat Dem Saints" with Aaron Neville and several Saints players.

In a statement Thursday, WhoDat Inc. said that before that recording, there were no branded items with the motto. The brothers said the company has the only federal trademark for "Who Dat." Steve Monistere said he and his brother were at the Saints' first game in 1967 and have been fans through all the ups and downs -- mostly downs, of course.

Storyville shop co-owner Gabriel Harvey pulled his "Who Dat" shirts after getting letters from the NFL and WhoDat Inc.

"It seems unclear who, if anyone, owns it," Harvey said. "A lot of people believe it belongs to the city and the people."

Two members of Louisiana's congressional delegation -- Republican Sen. David Vitter and Democratic congressman Charlie Melancon -- took public umbrage at the NFL.

Vitter wrote NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, urging the league to concede that "Who Dat" is in the public domain. Otherwise, Vitter said he will print and sell T-shirts with "WHO DAT say we can't print Who Dat!" on them.

"Please either drop your present ridiculous position or sue me," Vitter wrote.

Later Friday, NFL vice president Jeffery Miller told Vitter in a letter that the league is narrowly targeting Who Dat products "only when those products contain or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints."

"This is consistent with steps the NFL has taken in the markets of the NFL's other 31 member clubs when infringements are identified," Miller said.

Melancon provided a link -- headed "No One Owns WHO DAT" -- on his Twitter page to a petition encouraging the NFL to back off.

The "Who Dat" chant's origins are somewhat murky. Some historians say it came about in the days of late 19th-century minstrel shows and later showed up in vaudeville routines. In 1937's "A Day at the Races," the Marx Brothers perform a number -- in blackface -- called "Who Dat Man."

"Who Dat" also is used in a 1938 MGM cartoon -- now seldom seen because of its racially offensive nature -- called "Swing Wedding," which featured frog caricatures of black entertainers such as Ethel Waters, the Mills Brothers, Louis Armstrong and Cab Calloway.

It's been yelled at high school and college games, and fans of the Cincinnati Bengals are known to chant "Who Dey?"

Glenn Lunney, a Tulane University Law School professor specializing in intellectual property, said a trademark is different from a copyright or patent and doesn't necessarily have to be original. For example, computer and iPod manufacturer Apple trademarked the familiar, centuries-old fruit, he said.

"You can take a word and by applying it to goods or services get people to think about your goods or services," and get commercial rights, he said.

The NFL would likely argue it has a valid trademark because "Who Dat" is so strongly associated with the Saints, he said.

In a similar case, bookstores around the University of Wisconsin sold "Bucky Badger" T-shirts royalty-free for years -- until the university trademarked the mascot itself in the late 1980s and won its case in court, Lunney said.

As for Thom, she said several New Orleans attorneys have offered free legal help.

And how about the WhoDat Inc. guys? They "were nice" about the situation, Thom said -- "they said we should market the shirts together and make more money together."

Sure-Oz
01-30-2010, 07:13 PM
The NFL is gonna trademark the salary cap or lack there of

chefsos
01-30-2010, 07:35 PM
Outrageous.

Not the NFL, but the dumbfucks who are feigning indignance over this.

"only when those products contain or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints."

Your average imbecile knows that the team logos are trademarked.

Mr. Flopnuts
01-30-2010, 07:40 PM
Outrageous.

Not the NFL, but the dumbfucks who are feigning indignance over this.



Your average imbecile knows that the team logos are trademarked.

Yeah I thought the same thing. But why not go after the logo infringement rather than include anything about Who Dat?

chefsos
01-30-2010, 07:53 PM
Yeah I thought the same thing. But why not go after the logo infringement rather than include anything about Who Dat?They probably did, but this angle makes for a much better set of "victims".

Easy 6
01-30-2010, 07:58 PM
When i saw the title for this story earlier at work, i instantly clicked thinking 'joke'...

Goodell is WAY too full of himself right now, the ****ing pocket dictator... letting the cap situation get to this point? calling the Pro Bowl change a 'success? letting his refs fist**** huge playoff games - followed by feeble apologies? taking home games away from teams to play in Britain, Canada & Lower Zambofa? the NFL Network stealing games from public view? trying to patent a 'chant'... Oh. My. God.

The next thing you know, playoff games will be on a pay-per-view basis.

Roger must be stopped at all costs, if you are listening... you are the Resistance.

Molitoth
01-30-2010, 07:59 PM
I'm going to trademark the words "The" and "it".

I'm gonna be so rich.

milkman
01-30-2010, 08:00 PM
When i saw the title for this story earlier at work, i instantly clicked thinking 'joke'...

Goodell is WAY too full of himself right now, the ****ing pocket dictator... letting the cap situation get to this point? calling the Pro Bowl change a 'success? letting his refs fist**** huge playoff games - followed by feeble apologies? taking home games away from teams to play in Britain, Canada & Lower Zambofa? the NFL Network stealing games from public view? trying to patent a 'chant'... Oh. My. God.

The next thing you know, playoff games will be on a pay-per-view basis.

Roger must be stopped at all costs, if you are listening... you are the Resistance.

Frankly, I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about.

MMXcalibur
01-30-2010, 08:10 PM
Frankly, I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about.

I hate this shit. Expand on why he's wrong or STFU.

Easy 6
01-30-2010, 08:21 PM
Frankly, I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about.

... LMAO, i appreciate your candor MM, atleast i know where you stand... i do sometimes wonder if you're right though...

Whats your disagreement?

milkman
01-30-2010, 08:22 PM
I hate this shit. Expand on why he's wrong or STFU.

Because the NFL states more than once that article they aren't suing for infringment on the phrase "Who Dat?" spcifically, but on the Saints logos being used with that merchadise.

Because Roger Goodell is only a negotiator for the league in the talks with the NFLPA, and has his hands tied to a great extent by the fact that the owners can't even agree amongst themselves.

Because the Pro Bowl is a useless exhibition that nobody cared about until they changed it to the week before the SB, and moved it to Miami.
Now it's discussed as much, or more than, the SB this past week.

morphius
01-30-2010, 08:37 PM
If people are putting that and the logo together, assuming that you can really own the fleur-de-lis since it has been in use since early Mesopotamia, then I don't really have an issue with the league stopping people from selling it. If the shirts just say "Who Dat", then I'd hope they really are leaving those people alone.

FAX
01-30-2010, 08:37 PM
Hmmm.

In this case, I say screw the NFL, their attorneys, and the wacky executive crazies they rode in on. The Fleur-de-lis is a symbol that has been around for literally thousands of years. Are they going to sue the Boy Scouts and the Freemasons too?

It's as though the Chiefs and the NFL think they "own" the outline of a big, ol', fat, Indian Arrowhead ... impossible. As for the "Who Dat" motto, that too has been in existence and use in New Orleans and vicinities for a very long time.

I can understand the position that they wish to protect "authorized" NFL apparel, but they do that by labeling those items as "authorized". Dis is a buncha gator crap.

FAX

Mr. Flopnuts
01-30-2010, 08:42 PM
If people are putting that and the logo together, assuming that you can really own the fleur-de-lis since it has been in use since early Mesopotamia, then I don't really have an issue with the league stopping people from selling it. If the shirts just say "Who Dat", then I'd hope they really are leaving those people alone.

What if it's a black shirt with gold print saying "Who Dat?"

morphius
01-30-2010, 08:58 PM
What if it's a black shirt with gold print saying "Who Dat?"
Well, I doubt the NFL can own color combinations.

FAX
01-30-2010, 09:02 PM
What if it's a giant, robotic tarantula with enormous teeth, big, bloodshot eyes, and hoop earrings?

FAX

Mr. Flopnuts
01-30-2010, 09:02 PM
Well, I doubt the NFL can own color combinations.

I agree. I think they should just back off period. The Saints logo has been around for centuries. As long as it doesn't say Saints, or NFL in some fashion I think they lose this case. Just my opinion.

I was curious where you'd draw the line with the NFL "property".

CHENZ A!
01-30-2010, 09:13 PM
the bengals should sue also, and the buccaneers. any other teams that use that gay fucking shit should get in on it too.

Psyko Tek
01-30-2010, 11:00 PM
What if it's a giant, robotic tarantula with enormous teeth, big, bloodshot eyes, and hoop earrings?

FAX
hoop earrings?

you may have gone too far

teedubya
01-31-2010, 12:32 AM
And "The Who" is playing at halftime of the Superbowl

WoodDraw
01-31-2010, 12:41 AM
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/2009/news/story?id=4871697


The chant -- "Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints" -- is often shortened to "Who Dat" on shirts and signs and has been a mainstay at the Superdome since the 1980s.

That has to be one of the better lines ever in journalism. LOL

Sweet Daddy Hate
01-31-2010, 04:06 AM
http://image.spreadshirt.com/image-server/image/product/4146792/view/1/type/png/width/280/height/280

Consistent1
01-31-2010, 04:49 AM
I am thinking about consulting an attorney to make sure I am alright moving forward with another run of "uR aNd IdiOt" Chiefs shirts. Better safe than sorry....

Nzoner
01-31-2010, 09:43 AM
I agree. I think they should just back off period. The Saints logo has been around for centuries. As long as it doesn't say Saints, or NFL in some fashion I think they lose this case. Just my opinion.

I was curious where you'd draw the line with the NFL "property".

I just bought mardi gras beads with the saints emblem all over them for our SB party next week and I gurantee at $1.49 each they're not licensed by the NFL.

Bugeater
01-31-2010, 01:26 PM
What if it's a giant, robotic tarantula with enormous teeth, big, bloodshot eyes, and hoop earrings?

FAX
Then it would be my mother-in-law, and I have her trademarked. You'll be hearing from my lawyers.