How Much would it cost?
- Thread starter Mr BLUEandWHITE
- Start date
- Status
Sometimes it is the team that moves that keeps its name. The old Minnesota North Stars franchise moved to Dallas and became the "Stars". When the Atlanta Flames franchise moved to Calgary, they kept the Flames name as well, although I don't think Calgary ever had a huge fire! Obviously the Nordiques changed their name when moved to Colorado, as did the old Rockies.
It appears it is up to the owner for the most part as long as a name is not already taken.
It appears it is up to the owner for the most part as long as a name is not already taken.
Mr BLUEandWHITE
Registered User
Fugu said:
I can see that COL dosent change there name to the rockies because of the MLB team has that name.....but then did they buy the rights from the New Jersey Devils? (i think colorado moved to NJ)
Verbeek
Human see, human do.
Mr BLUEandWHITE said:
I could see this being a potential war. I could see reason's, although they are greegy ones for those moved teams keeping rights to the name/logo of their days past. Maybe it would be really expensive, maybe they wouldnt want to sell at all.
I know there is a group up in Hartford that managed to get the rights to the Whalers name and logo off of the now Carolina franchise(to save incase the city ever gets a team back), and that is why you don't see vintage whalers jerseys anymore on NHL games.
Jazz
Registered User
Mr BLUEandWHITE
Registered User
Actually, 32 would be perfect.
Eight divisions of four teams, top two teams in each division make the playoffs. You could balance the schedule a little better, and allow for those divisional rivalries to take place in the first round of the playoffs.
Anyway, I might be completely out to lunch on this, but I think the NHL itself actually owns all of the trademarks on defunct clubs. I think they picked them up for the Vintage merchandise line. If that is accurate, chances are it wouldnt cost any returning market much, if anything at all, to regain the names.
Eight divisions of four teams, top two teams in each division make the playoffs. You could balance the schedule a little better, and allow for those divisional rivalries to take place in the first round of the playoffs.
Anyway, I might be completely out to lunch on this, but I think the NHL itself actually owns all of the trademarks on defunct clubs. I think they picked them up for the Vintage merchandise line. If that is accurate, chances are it wouldnt cost any returning market much, if anything at all, to regain the names.
Seth Lake
Registered User
Actually, the State of Connecticut owns the right to the "Whalers" name and logos. They purchased it from Karmanos during the Whalers' exit from Hartford.Verbeek said:
So glad to live in a city that has NHL hockey again.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Resolute said:
I doubt that the league actually owns the trademarks. They probably just have a license to use them.
This was an issue when the Expos moved to DC. One of the most poular suggestions was for them to become the 3rd incarnation of the Washington Senators - the first Washington Senators (1901-1960) moved to Minnesota in '61 and became the Twins and the second expansion Senators (1961-1971) moved to Texas in '72. Apparently the Texas Rangers still owned the Washington Senators name, logo, and trademark. Supposedly they were willing to sell for a nominal fee, but the new DC owners opted for the Nationals - the actual official name of the original Senators until '56 (although fans had always called them the Senators anyway).
Jazz
Registered User
My question was more of a statement as I doubt any Canadian investor would buck up to bring an established team back to Canada.Mr BLUEandWHITE said:
I'm actually getting sick of these re-location threads, and I don't understand how we Canadians can't understand that teams don't move from bigger markets to smaller ones, except for rare exceptions (ie Atlanta ---> Calgary)
kdb209 - and in the NFL, a team that relocates loses the rights to the team name of the city it is leaving. Just because the name remains with the team in baseball doesnt mean the same is true in hockey. Especially if I had heard correct in that the NHL picked up the trademarks itself.
Gnashville
HFBoards Hall of Famer
Fugu said:
Other teams should have... How crazy does Utah Jazz sound ?
I sure hope they'd let 'hem take the names back...
I think it would be seen very badly by the industry if Colorado prevented Quebec to take back it's name, a name they don't even use and never was associated with Colorado...
Jazz said:
You seam to think market is only total population. If you consider Market has being people who know the rules of the game, Quebec city is probably a bigger market the Houston, San Diego, or any city in the South that haven't seen hockey in their life.
Just because there are more people in Houston than in Quebec city doesn't make Houston a better place to sell winter clothes.
kdb209
Registered User
- Jan 26, 2005
- 14,870
- 6
Resolute said:
Well, rather than just rely on the "what other leagues do" and "if I heard correct", I just took a look at the US Patent and Trademark Office and the Canadian Intellectual Properties Office searchable databases and found that the NHL does indeed own both the US and Canadian trademarks on the Quebec Nordiques and Winnipeg Jets.
http://www.uspto.gov/index.html
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/cipo/trademarks/search/tmSearch.do
- Status
