News Article: The Edmonton Rush moving to Saskatoon

Bangers

Registered User
May 31, 2006
3,919
868
In related news, the NHL has asked the Oilers organization to stop using the term "NHL franchise" when referring to themselves.
 

rboomercat90

Registered User
Mar 24, 2013
14,832
9,183
Edmonton
I think that's it - the Oilers said they would let them use it if asked. I think the Oilers just want to protect what they consider their "property" (although I do agree - it is a bit silly).

If you just let someone use it without permission you'd forfit any right to it.
I don't know the answer to this but would I be correct to assume that permission involves a fee?
 

Perfect_Drug

Registered User
Mar 24, 2006
15,635
12,007
Montreal

TheSpecialist

Registered User
Feb 11, 2006
1,093
104
Edmonton, AB
The Oilers organization is a complete joke and an embarrassment to the city. Aren't there far more important things that they should be worried about instead of something as silly as this? I mean take a good look in the mirror!
 

harpoon

Registered User
Dec 23, 2005
14,287
11,559
Battle? More like beatdown
This team is truly embarrassing.
No argument about the embarrassing part, but really, as bad as this Oiler team has been, they haven't taken an inordinate number of "beatdowns".
I've been surprised by that all through these terrible tanking years of Katz's ownership.
I wonder, how is it that a team this bad doesn't get really unloaded on at least once a month?
Maybe I've just blocked the "beatdowns" out of my mind, and I need to be corrected here.

On the other hand, when there was a Battle of Alberta, the Oilers regularly handed out beatdowns to the Flames and most other teams in the league as well.

Imagine being a Flame fan and knowing that the only time your city has managed to assemble a team worth bragging about they got dismantled by the Oilers as a matter of course. The only reason they called it a "battle" was because of all the (Flamer) blood that got shed on the ice, not because the final outcome was ever in doubt.

People want to blame the death of the BoA on the Oilers, but really what have the Flames done? Middle of the pack losers (just like the Oilers were for most of the nineties). Is that really something to hang your hat on - especially when you had one of the best goaltenders and one of the best power forwards in the league and just couldn't find any pieces to go with them? Kipper and Iggy wasted their whole careers in Calgary.

There will never be another BoA like it was in the day. The chances of Edmonton and Calgary ever being that good again at the same time is almost zero.

And while I'm at it, Edmonton will never be the City of Champions again. That little embarrassment should be retired along with the BoA.

Certainly not in favor of the Rush using it, but under no circumstances would I ever care enough to try and get them to desist. I guess that's the Oilers for you, petty to the core.
 

PBandJ

If it didn't happen in the 80's, it didn't happen
Jan 5, 2012
13,021
4,115
Edmonton, Alberta
What an absolute joke.

The Rush should tell them to shove it and use an alternative. War of Alberta or something to that effect.
 

PinSeeker

Really narrowed his eyyyyyyyyyesssssss
Aug 22, 2005
4,107
1,212
YLW
Just another reason to hate this era...
They will be lucky if I watch one game next year - between these petty squabbles and MacT's "internal development" year, I am embarrassed to call myself an Oilers fan
 

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,923
15,736
It's a lot older than the Eskimos and Stampeders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alberta#Origins


Even for Hockey, it was the Edmonton Thistles, Fort Saskatchewan Mounted Police, and the Calgary Fire Brigade in 1895.

:/

Infact, the Edmonton Eskimos were a hockey team that played for the Stanley Cup in 1923, but the rivalry was against the Calgary Tigers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Alberta#Hockey
Honestly it doesn't matter if the original BOA came from 10 years ago or over 100 years ago, it matters when it was trade marked.

With that being said, this is mighty small of the Oilers. Are they going to sue themselves with the Oil Kings use the same phrase?
 

Replacement*

Checked out
Apr 15, 2005
48,856
2
Hiking
Go Rush, Esks and every other Edmonton sports team not tainted by Katz group

Though I like the Oil Kings :sarcasm:

What an awful organization. Top to bottom.

Just another reason to hate this era...
They will be lucky if I watch one game next year - between these petty squabbles and MacT's "internal development" year, I am embarrassed to call myself an Oilers fan

Well heres a surprize. Just to clarify the EIG were the ones that filed intellectual rights/trademark for Battle of Alberta and did so in 2000 when they were also coining such gibberish as Hockey Heartland. The trademark was granted in 2003 but the details of who applied and what it includes is quite clearly layed out.


http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/opic-cipo/t...344&extension=0&startingDocumentIndexOnPage=1

Theres plenty of reasons to detest Katz current running of the team but this isn't one of them, this was clearly EIG who applied for, and attained trademark and who imo were similarly despicable. jmo.

My question would be similar to the OP. Why would such a common use vernacular term be acceptable for trademark? Or why was this not challenged or contested? I do believe that other parties, anywhere in the process, can challenge or submit information contrary to the trademark submission. It takes generally a long time, and in this instance 3yrs, for full approval of the trademark term to be granted. So there was ample time for other orgs to contest this granting of trademark.

I do think its inappropriate for one org to co-opt such a common use term and especially an org founded by Bill Hunter who would never have layed claim to such copyright and who himself coined the Edmonton Oil Kings vs Calgary Centennials as the "Battle of Alberta" but welcomed any such battle and by other teams and sports engaged in it.


just as an aside the funniest thing in the Trademark summary is this;

The right to the exclusive use of the word ALBERTA is disclaimed apart from the trade-mark.

lol, so we see the degree of disclaiming is only that the Oilers weren't granted exusive trademark rights to the name "Alberta" except as indicated in the broader term. Somehow I find that funny that its the only disclaimer. Really the whole thing is a joke.

Finally, is there any other club in pro sports anywhere that has lobbied for Exclusive rights to such a common use term?
 
Last edited:

PBandJ

If it didn't happen in the 80's, it didn't happen
Jan 5, 2012
13,021
4,115
Edmonton, Alberta
Honestly it doesn't matter if the original BOA came from 10 years ago or over 100 years ago, it matters when it was trade marked.

With that being said, this is mighty small of the Oilers. Are they going to sue themselves with the Oil Kings use the same phrase?

The question now is why were they allowed to trademark it?
 

Replacement*

Checked out
Apr 15, 2005
48,856
2
Hiking
The question now is why were they allowed to trademark it?

I just applied for the trademarks "hfboards" "King of Edmonton" and "Genius of Alberta incorporated".. none of these names were taken so....




I'm joking..


Really anybody can apply for a trademark. Anybody can object to it as well. Curiously the fee for objecting is 1K and much more than it is for the original application. Odd.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr02003.html
 

joestevens29

Registered User
Apr 30, 2009
52,923
15,736
I just applied for the trademarks "hfboards" "King of Edmonton" and "Genius of Alberta incorporated.. none of these names were taken so....




I'm joking..


Really anybody can apply for a trademark. Anybody can object to it as well. Curiously the fee for objecting is 1K and much more than it is for the original application. Odd.

http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr02003.html
I think the reason is so they don't have every tom dick and harry just objecting for the sake of objecting.
 

Replacement*

Checked out
Apr 15, 2005
48,856
2
Hiking
You can trademark anything. Didn't "Johnny Hockey" become a trademark this year? Is he really the only guy to ever be called "Johnny Hockey"?

There is no "Johnny Hockey" trademark according to the trademark search function.

I should get right on that and TM him. :sarcasm:

I should co-opt "King of Calgary" while I'm at it for ***** and giggles..
 

CornKicker

Holland is wrong..except all of the good things
Feb 18, 2005
11,920
3,253
i wonder if they have trademarked "getting bent over every season" as well
 

CornKicker

Holland is wrong..except all of the good things
Feb 18, 2005
11,920
3,253
You can trademark anything. Didn't "Johnny Hockey" become a trademark this year? Is he really the only guy to ever be called "Johnny Hockey"?

his agent appiled for a trademark on it to prevent people from making johnny hockey apparel and making money off his name without his consent. just an agent doing his job. too bad the oilers dont have anyone doing their jobs.
 

CornKicker

Holland is wrong..except all of the good things
Feb 18, 2005
11,920
3,253
his agent appiled for a trademark on it to prevent people from making johnny hockey apparel and making money off his name without his consent. just an agent doing his job. too bad the oilers dont have anyone doing their jobs.

the oilers have become so sad that i took to defending a flames player........this is what youve done Katz, it has come to this.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad