NHL demanding $89,000 from Montreal restaurant

[cheswick]

They're suing because they had already sent a letter. Suing wasn't the first thing they did. They sent him a letter so he painted over the habs logo on his sign but he continued to use the trademarked phrase go habs go so that's why they're suing.

Kinda stupid but whatever

 

[jessebelanger]

Mod: deleted.

From the article it sounds like the owner was told to stop using the NHL's trademarks and told he would be sued $1,000 a day (the owner states this himself).

The total number is $89,000 - so is this number retroactive or did he wait 89 days after receiving this letter to take action? My take from this is that the owner ignored the initial request and then went to the press when he realized he was on the hook for 89 grand.

I highly doubt the NHL cares about the 89 grand - they do however care about protecting their trademarks. What value do sponsorships (which the NHL is leaning heavily on these days) have if joe-blow can just waltz in and start using the same images?

Perhaps one of our lawyer friends can comment on this.

 

[DeathToAllButMetal]

"Go Habs Go" is trademarked? What's next for the NHL? "Good Morning"?

This doesn't stand a hope in hell of success in court. Aside from the whole "little guy against the man" thing, the notion that the league can try and grab cash from the use of common statements like this is just absurd. Maybe the league needs to charge fans 50 cents for every shout out of "Go Habs Go" during games at the Molson Centre now. Tack on an "Ole!" surcharge while they're at it.

 

[Kitsune]

I dont know about that Kitsune. The NHL's not in the habit of launching "nonsense suits". We've got the "Shawarma Guy" & the issues over fake Sharks apparel being sold outside The Tank here today on the threads; last weeks car dealership in Vancouver. Seems to be some linkage, a message being sent from NHL Licensing. I remember from my Toronto days how sensitive Ballard was to any usage of the Leafs logo without payment, & have had dealings with the IOC over the very word "Olympic" pursuant to intellectual property rights. In my case it had nothing whatsoever to do with commercial infringement or advertising. It was purely an artistic issue that eventually got tossed but still. Quite the eyeopener that I didnt really need.

The IOC trademark's arent really trademarks though... when the host agreement is signed, it states that nothing in X city or province/state can use the "Olympic" word. Its why they were only targetting Vancouver and co in the days leading to 2010. Places in Sudbury and Winnipeg for example continued to use the Olympic word without reprucussion. History is littered with trademarks that were thrown out because they had become a common phrase or usage.

 

[st5801]

The NFL does the same thing with "Super Bowl". If you own a bar and advertise a "Super Bowl special" or "Super Bowl party", you'll be hearing from the NFL's legal team. You have to use a generic phrase like "big game".

 

[WheresJoe]

It's pretty simple, the NHL believes that other companies shouldn't profit from their supposed intellectual property. So they will not allow anything like this to fly unfortunately as they believe that the company is using the NHL to make profit for themselves.

 

[AllByDesign]

It is also free association to the owner of the shop, no? He has no affiliation with the Canadiens, yet will attract customers as a result of the implied affiliation. Much like the situation in Vancouver, "THE LEAGUE" is being the bad guy in order to enforce a complaint by the actual team.

Keep in mind that local businesses pay good money in order to be affiliated with the team. They have a right to benefit from that partnership. The team has a right to protect their interests as well. I am sure if the owner of this establishment wished to legally use this sign, the Canadiens would be more than happy to provide a price.

People also had the same outrage when Disney was suing school boards when the institutions were utilizing Disney's protected trademarked characters. Its their property, and they have the right to enforce those rights to the full extent of the law.

 

[Mayor Bee]

"Go Habs Go" is trademarked? What's next for the NHL? "Good Morning"?

This doesn't stand a hope in hell of success in court. Aside from the whole "little guy against the man" thing, the notion that the league can try and grab cash from the use of common statements like this is just absurd. Maybe the league needs to charge fans 50 cents for every shout out of "Go Habs Go" during games at the Molson Centre now. Tack on an "Ole!" surcharge while they're at it.

No, there's a huge difference between the written and spoken word as it relates to copyright and trademark law. And then there's another huge difference between the spoken word for commercial purposes versus personal purposes; to use an example, a radio station is required to pay per use to play songs, while you personally are not required to pay in order to play those same songs. You're allowed to use a company slogan when talking to friends, but not in a commercial or advertisement (even if you're not an actual competitor).

You get the idea.

 

[Kimota]

****ign stupid. It's free advertisement.

I agree. It's like they're discouraging the city and their business to support the team.

 

[jessebelanger]

It is also free association to the owner of the shop, no? He has no affiliation with the Canadiens, yet will attract customers as a result of the implied affiliation. Much like the situation in Vancouver, "THE LEAGUE" is being the bad guy in order to enforce a complaint by the actual team.

Keep in mind that local businesses pay good money in order to be affiliated with the team. They have a right to benefit from that partnership. The team has a right to protect their interests as well. I am sure if the owner of this establishment wished to legally use this sign, the Canadiens would be more than happy to provide a price.

People also had the same outrage when Disney was suing school boards when the institutions were utilizing Disney's protected trademarked characters. Its their property, and they have the right to enforce those rights to the full extent of the law.

Indeed. And in a way they did supply a price - $1,000 a day. The owner decided that he did not have to pay this price - complaining to the press is easier then parting with money.

 

[AllByDesign]

Indeed. And in a way they did supply a price - $1,000 a day. The owner decided that he did not have to pay this price - complaining to the press is easier then parting with money.

I'm with the owner there!