Army Officially Opposes Vegas Golden Knights Trademark

[LeHab]

ESPN recently reported that the Army doesn't own the Golden Knights trademark, and while that's pretty much accurate, it doesn't change what's going on right now.

Yeah I know, seems this would have not been an issue if LV did not attempted to link the team with the military unit. Still feel this will be settled one way or another in a friendly fashion.

 

[Jarey Curry]

You might just get your wish. Knights is a more generic name, and there aren't the same trademark issues with it. When this story broke, I was thinking that a solution that would let Vegas keep some of the trademark they've built, while agreeably not violating others' trademarks, would be to change the name to Las Vegas Knights, make some relatively minor adjustments to some visual aspects of their trademark (but no reason they can't keep the "V") and go on being the "Knights" in much the same way teams are affectionately called "Leafs," "Hawks," etc. You don't want to lose the entire nickname with all the excitement the team has generated, and they don't have to. There was no real loss when the Mighty Ducks became the Ducks, or baseball's Devil Rays became the Rays.

If only London Knights didn't exist?

 

[BigZ65]

You know, I went to see CFL Football in Ottawa in the early 2000's when the team in Ottawa was called the "Ottawa Renegades", and in my opinion that's a much better name then both the previous and later name.

RedBlacks sounds too much like a University team name. Like my own Laval U. Rouge et Or.

Anyways, maybe that's a solution for the Golden Knights: name them the Vegas Grey and Gold? Or maybe Vegas Gold and Grey?

Rouge et noir would have been a great name. REDBLACKS (they trademarked it all caps and asked media to write it that way previously) is juvenile.

 

[SCBlueLiner]

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

I still don't understand why that is an issue. There are all sorts of teams out there that have the same nicknames. How many college programs have a team name "Tigers", for example. I suppose I could understand if a team was attempting to take a name that had some sort of local attachment like "Sooners" or "Utes" or something like that, but "Knights"? Knights is pretty much in the realm of Tigers in terms of being generic like Bears or Eagles, maybe more like Trojans or Spartans or Gladiators.

 

[Burke the Legend]

I still don't understand why that is an issue. There are all sorts of teams out there that have the same nicknames. How many college programs have a team name "Tigers", for example. I suppose I could understand if a team was attempting to take a name that had some sort of local attachment like "Sooners" or "Utes" or something like that, but "Knights"? Knights is pretty much in the realm of Tigers in terms of being generic like Bears or Eagles, maybe more like Trojans or Spartans or Gladiators.

Even if they figured they had a 75% chance of winning there's too much money at stake to risk the uncertainty of years of litigation during which all kinds of investment is going into the club's brand those early critical years . If they lost it could be very damaging.

 

[TheSituation]

I still don't understand why that is an issue. There are all sorts of teams out there that have the same nicknames. How many college programs have a team name "Tigers", for example. I suppose I could understand if a team was attempting to take a name that had some sort of local attachment like "Sooners" or "Utes" or something like that, but "Knights"? Knights is pretty much in the realm of Tigers in terms of being generic like Bears or Eagles, maybe more like Trojans or Spartans or Gladiators.

Because colleges are really more about their school names than the mascots. It's not worth the battle for them.

 

[Jacob]

Yep. Not to mention he based the jerseys on the West Point uniforms.

Aside from them both being articles of clothing I see no similarities.

 

[LadyStanley]

Don’t bet on a Golden Knights name change in trademark case

Trademark attorney Patrick Jennings of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP in Washington, D.C., has followed the Golden Knights trademark situation for months and believes the team’s name is safe.

“That would seem to be fairly unlikely to me,” Jennings said of a name change. “The possibility of a logo change would seem (relatively) a bit more likely.”

Jennings suggested that in similar cases at this point in their evolution, the parties have been in discussions and the opposition filing is a normal part of the process.
...
Jennifer Craft, a local trademark attorney for Dickinson Wright law firm, also believes the Golden Knights have nothing to worry about.

“I would be very surprised if they rule in the Army’s favor,” said Craft, who works in the law firm’s intellectual property and media department, specifically focused on sports and entertainment. “I think the hockey team has a pretty strong case.”

Neither side wants to spend beaucoup $$ and have this drag on through the courts. A settlement of some kind is probable. But there might be tweaks to logo.

 

[yukoner88]

what about the logo would they have to change or tweak?

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I would have thought the other way around.

Logo change would be more costly, IMO.

 

[Lempo]

What exactly is anyone confusing the logo to, to warrant it to be changed on trademark basis?

 

[Insomniac99]

Update:

Looks like both sides are actively working on settling at the moment.

Black Knight Sports and Entertainment LLCC, the corporation which owns the NHL’s Vegas Golden Knights filed a “Motion for Suspension for Settlement With Consent” with the Department of the Army last Thursday in order to “allow the parties to continue their settlement efforts”; the filing stated that “the parties are actively engaged in negotiations for the settlement of this matter”.
The motion was granted, proceedings from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in this case have been suspended 90 days; the “deadline to respond” originally set for February 19 is now April 25th, 2018.

 

[BattleBorn]

Update:

Looks like both sides are actively working on settling at the moment.

Like I said after this most recent challenge came up, I'm guessing VGK will get the trademark with an agreement that the Army Golden Knights aren't violating the registered Vegas Golden Knights trademark with their continued use.

It's worth mentioning again that the Army isn't contesting that VGK violates their registered trademark since their trademark isn't registered, it's a common "We're using this name in trade (TM) trademark" and not a "Circle R" registered trademark.

 

[cutchemist42]

If you're Army, do you hold the upperhand in this? Like could they strongarm them into a couple million?

 

[BattleBorn]

If you're Army, do you hold the upperhand in this? Like could they strongarm them into a couple million?

I'm guessing the Golden Knights will donate some money from their already ongoing charitable efforts to Army/DoD type stuff, which is probably what Foley would have wanted anyway.

The Army/DoD just want to make sure they don't have to change their parachute team's name sometime in the future if/when the VGK trademark is approved.

 

[IamNotADancer]

I still think "Las Vegas Vipers" would have been the best choice for the team and would have delivered some great jersey opportunities as well as a great abbreviation for the scoreboard "LVV" .

But what do I know, I'm just another hockey fan.

 

[gstommylee]

If you're Army, do you hold the upperhand in this? Like could they strongarm them into a couple million?

One would need leverage to do that and since Golden Knights isn't trademarked, they lack leverage to get that.

 

[BattleBorn]

One would need leverage to do that and since Golden Knights isn't trademarked, they lack leverage to get that.

Golden Knights is trademarked by the DoD and the Vegas Golden Knights. What's happening now is a conflict over registering the trademark.

You can claim a trademark yourself just creating a name/logo/service mark, adding the TM to the name/logo/service mark and performing commerce. It does not register the trademark, which is done with the USPTO.

 

[gstommylee]

Golden Knights is trademarked by the DoD and the Vegas Golden Knights. What's happening now is a conflict over registering the trademark.

You can claim a trademark yourself just creating a name/logo/service mark, adding the TM to the name/logo/service mark and performing commerce. It does not register the trademark, which is done with the USPTO.

ah not registered trademark. Gotcha. So my question is why hasn't DOD done that before Vegas went with the name?

 

[BattleBorn]

ah not registered trademark. Gotcha. So my question is why hasn't DOD done that before Vegas went with the name?

They really don't need to. I don't imagine they sell much Golden Knights parachute team merchandise, they probably don't do much commerce with the name at all. Since they're not really selling anything in any large amount, there's no reason to assume they'd need the protection.

There's a lot of brand names out there that aren't registered trademarks.

 

[LadyStanley]

It's hundreds to thousands of $$ in fees, lawyer bills, to even apply for a registered trademark. (I own a couple of nice logos I used in commerce, but never trademarked them, excluding the TM)

 

[gstommylee]

wow didn't realize it was that expensive.

 

[LadyStanley]

Lawyers charge $100+/hr (nice work if you can get it).


Golden Knights, Army Sit Down To Negotiate Trademark Squabble

Legal action on hold.

 

[BKIslandersFan]

I assume they will get something done, since Bill Foley seems to be quite proud of his army background.

 

[Hoek]

I still think "Las Vegas Vipers" would have been the best choice for the team and would have delivered some great jersey opportunities as well as a great abbreviation for the scoreboard "LVV" .

But what do I know, I'm just another hockey fan.

But then the defunct Detroit Vipers would've complained! Oh wait..