OT: Creighton asked Tyler Phommachanh change logo

[B1GEast]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...t-creighton-bluejays-to-change-their-new-logo


Oh Canada

 

[Rocktheworld]

I don't get why the baseball team gives a

 

[Fishy]

I don't think the title of the article was exactly correct.

I think Creighton is trying to trademark the image and the Toronto Blue Jays are simply opposing that effort because it might adversely affect their own. (Which is remarkably similar.)

I don't see where Toronto is trying to force Creighton into changing. (Although, by preventing a trademark from being issued, perhaps Creighton would have to in order to prevent everyone on earth from selling stuff with their logo on it?)

 

[Leebo]

Toronto's legal people release a dry legal document meant to show that they're defending their trademarks, and it has to be injected with all kinds of unnecessary emotional words to get people to be mad about it.

 

[Strummer]

I've done a bit of trademark law.

Toronto's legal people release a dry legal document meant to show that they're defending their trademarks, and it has to be injected with all kinds of unnecessary emotional words to get people to be mad about it.

I read the whole thing. Didn't see anything emotional at all. Very standard TM opposition. Would have looked very similar to that if any one of 500 other firms had filed it.

I don't get why the baseball team gives a

Because they believe there's a chance that this costs them money, and it costs very little, in comparison, to file an opposition to the trademark registration.

I don't think the title of the article was exactly correct.

No doubt. This isn't personal for them. It's business. They're in business for money.

I think Creighton is trying to trademark the image and the Toronto Blue Jays are simply opposing that effort because it might adversely affect their own.

That's exactly their claim.

(Which is remarkably similar.)

Depends. See below.

I don't see where Toronto is trying to force Creighton into changing.

Actually, this is ultimately what would happen - if the USPTO decides that the new jay infringes the old jay, then they won't register it. If Creighton then uses the new mark in commerce, then the Toronto Blue Jays can and will sue them for trademark infringement to prevent its use in commerce.

My thought is, you want to try to trademark an animal name and a stylized picture of the animal in association with a sports team, you should only be able to get TM protection on a very narrow mark. This isn't "arm and hammer" baking soda, which is very distinct and which didn't exist before somebody created the name. This is a freaking bird, using the name of the bird, and an image of the bird. Toronto should not be allowed to block the use of a blue jay on any sports team that looks remotely like their logo. There are only so many ways to draw a blue jay. To my eye, the Toronto BJ is boring and old and lifeless. The Creighton Jay is modern and emotive, with a bit of an anger emitting from the eye.

BTW - the whole "different country" thing in the article is stupid - the Toronto blue jays have the mark registered in the US and they sell product here, so it's got nothing to do with borders.

Nobody is going to confuse the Creighton Jay and the Toronto Jay, in my view, sufficiently to cause harm to the Toronto brand.

Creighton had to know this was coming.

Smart money is on the larger corporation with the registered mark, however.

On the bright side, this may end up giving Creighton an excuse to change it's lame animal choice.

 

[Leebo]

I read the whole thing. Didn't see anything emotional at all. Very standard TM opposition. Would have looked very similar to that if any one of 500 other firms had filed it.

I'm talking about the article. The headline describes Toronto as "ticked."

 

[Hans Sprungfeld]

To my eye, the Toronto BJ is boring and old and lifeless.

Is this a digression?

 

[CallMeBruce]

My thought is, you want to try to trademark an animal name and a stylized picture of the animal in association with a sports team, you should only be able to get TM protection on a very narrow mark. This isn't "arm and hammer" baking soda, which is very distinct and which didn't exist before somebody created the name. This is a freaking bird, using the name of the bird, and an image of the bird. Toronto should not be allowed to block the use of a blue jay on any sports team that looks remotely like their logo. There are only so many ways to draw a blue jay. To my eye, the Toronto BJ is boring and old and lifeless. The Creighton Jay is modern and emotive, with a bit of an anger emitting from the eye.

BTW - the whole "different country" thing in the article is stupid - the Toronto blue jays have the mark registered in the US and they sell product here, so it's got nothing to do with borders.

Nobody is going to confuse the Creighton Jay and the Toronto Jay, in my view, sufficiently to cause harm to the Toronto brand.

Creighton had to know this was coming.

Smart money is on the larger corporation with the registered mark, however.

On the bright side, this may end up giving Creighton an excuse to change it's lame animal choice.

I feel the same way. Creighton has been the Bluejays since the 20s. Even if their current logo is somewhat similar to Toronto's, I think that's more a result of the current trend of modern logos, and the limitations of trying to make an aggressive-looking blue jay.

 

[Strummer]

I'm talking about the article. The headline describes Toronto as "ticked."

Oh yeah - I see that now. I misread your post. Clearly the newspaper folks want to inject faux emotion.

 

[RichZ]

So what did Creighton's old logo look like?

 

[Fishy]

So what did Creighton's old logo look like?

 

[RichZ]

I like that, Fish.

In reality it appears they've never used just the head of the bird before, although I think the head of their 1970 version looks more like the Toronto logo than their new one does.

But seriously -- were they the Bluejays or the Angry Birds?

 

[Rocktheworld]

Dude for real what was going on in the 40s and 50s?

 

[Strummer]

I'm pretty sure we can pinpoint the year that the Dean's art major son got admitted to circa 1954, with him and the dean both being booted in the Spring of 1957.

 

[CallMeBruce]

That 1955 logo is incredible. I've never seen anything better.

 

[Tommyboy]

Seriously. What is up with that 1955 logo? That looks like the times I used to try and replicate the "Draw Me!" art school advertisements when I was a kid. Awful.

 

[RichZ]

They started out with someone sighting in on a bird with a scope. From 41 through 69, they had a series of birds standing with hands on hips in some kind of wierd tribute to Dom Deluise in a big musical number in a Mel Brooks movie. From that they went to fighting bird for a couple seasons before switching to disappointed looking bird for more than 4 decades, and finally to Canadian bird.

 

[StoweD210]

That 1955 logo is incredible. I've never seen anything better.

Can you imagine how fired up the athletes and students must have been when that rolled out? Merchandise sales must have been amazing.

 

[David 76]

Did you know UCONN forced the Morgan High (Clinton) Huskies to change their logo? Worse yet, right after Morgan changed theirs, we changed ours.