Discussion
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified in any way. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Posted 9:44 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#1) -
Aawon Buh
Actually, Chris, a C&D letter is generally the first thing you send in a trademark dispute, even if your intent is to reach a settlement. Trademark law gives greater protection to those who take tangible steps to protect their marks - or, conversely, reduces protection to those who don't. It's important to make the alleged infringer stop using the mark until there's a settlement in place. (E.g., a failure to protect cost Burlington Industries the right to stop Burlington Coat Factory from using the Burlington name; a judge ruled that BI had waited too long to take any action.)
It's not real neighborly, but the law in the US favors this approach.
Posted 9:51 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#2) -
Craig B
It's not real neighborly
No it isn't, but there's an excellent reason for it. Requiring that holders of marks take action to protect them when they are made aware of potential infringement, means that no one gets to practice bait and switch... allowing the disputed mark to become more valuable to the (alleged) infringer before bringing in the lawyers, to extract a higher price.
Posted 9:53 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#3) -
tangotiger
(e-mail)
(homepage)
I said it once, and I'll say it again: why does MLB simply not have a link on their site that tells the fansite operators what they should and should not do? Do you really need to spend 10,000$ on a lawyer, when a 1$ page will do the same job?
Posted 10:05 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#4) -
Brian C
tiger-
From a practical standpoint, no $10,000 lawyer is going to recommend that.
Posted 10:07 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#5) -
Darren
Tango--
Do you think people really don't know that they're not allowed to use team logos on their site? Or copyrighted images of players in team uniforms? I think people have a pretty good idea what's allowed, legally.
But your idea of a page that outlines what can and cannot be done is a good idea all the same. Just to clear up any confusion. (MLB is probably already paying those lawyers, so they might as well put em to work writing letters.)
Posted 10:17 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#6) -
Pipe Dreamer
Even better, how about a page that tells nonprofit fan sites how to go about getting permission to use the marks, and maybe even an automated request form? You could put the link in your C&Ds.
Posted 10:24 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#7) -
Repoz
MLB has also now locked up the rights to all MLB team pages in Japan (using the same depthless tactics as here,I assume),so if anybody in Japan is running a fan site of a ML team.....sayonara.
Posted 10:28 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#8) -
ColonelTom
The C&D letters are a necessary evil, for legal reasons. I'm just waiting for them to start hunting down computer baseball simulation leagues... "no, you can't call your team the Phillies without paying us." Or perhaps even worse, the MLBPA could crack down on the use of real player names in these leagues. They've gone after for-profit computer games before...
Scary can of worms, ain't it?
Posted 10:29 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#9) -
Jerry Royster
I agree with Aawon that the C&D is the usual course of action for a sweep and clean. While I think that it is a good idea for MLB to consider the option of a fan-friendly method of negotiation. I'm not real sure that the $1 page would be cheaper or really promote good will in the long run.
Even if MLB licensed the marks to blogs, they still would have to police the use of the mark. If they give away the right to use the mark for free, then they risk exposing themselves to both dilution or reducing the claim in the mark.
Instead of sending a C&D, MLB would then have to send license violation notices to each offender if the mark was used improperly, or was associated with a low quality product. This will increase the policing costs. Because the letter will require a blog owner to change practices, it will likely still be inflammatory.
Posted 10:48 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#10) -
Mark Murphy
RE: #5
Yes, many people don't know they're doing anything wrong. Some fan sites are run by kids. I'm sure they see it as a form of expression no different than opening their team scrapbook to the public, hanging a banner at the ballpark, or putting a drawing of their favorite player on the classroom wall.
Posted 11:26 a.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#11) -
Ray Kerby
(e-mail)
(homepage)
I know of only 5 sites that have received the letter:
astrosdaily.com
astrosconnection.com
astroshistory.com
metsonline.net
bronx-bombers.com
Anyone have a clue who got the other 17 letters?
By the way, I understand the need to send C&D letters. What I disagreed with was what I considered to be an overly broad definition of "infringement" used by MLB Properties.
Posted 12:41 p.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#12) -
lawrence
(homepage)
Dan Lewis has a related item on the topic. Sorta, I guess.
Posted 2:16 p.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#13) -
Chris Truby
Is MLB going to come after us for posting as players?
Posted 2:23 p.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#14) -
Satan
Fear not, my minion, I control the lawyers.
Posted 3:34 p.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#15) -
Craig B
Chris Truby said:
Is MLB going to come after us for posting as players?
OBP - .248
SLG - .336
OPS - .584
Maybe, Chris, but MLB is more likely to cme after for you for posing as a player.
Posted 4:00 p.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#16) -
Bernal Diaz
Why does MLB™®© continually choose to alien™®©ate its fan™®©s? Bud™®© Selig has no idea about how many people geniunely hate him does he? Instead of fansites cheapining the value of the MLB™®© trademark, baseball™®© should worry about themselves doing it. Why does MLB™®© hate its fan™®©s?
Posted 4:17 p.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#17) -
David Nieporent
(e-mail)
Why doesn't USA Today know the difference between copyright and trademark?
Posted 5:46 p.m.,
August 21, 2002
(#18) -
Dan Lewis
(homepage)
Haha... yeah, I've been following this a lot (the joke link notwithstanding), and it's incredible. I thought there were only five letters, too.
Posted 12:08 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#19) -
Srul Itza
Why doesn't USA Today know the difference between copyright and trademark?
Why would you expect USA Today to be any more knowledgeable in that area than in any of the others they habitually misreport on? If you plan on plumbing the depths of USA Today's ignorance, better bring a miner's hat and a canary in a cage.
Posted 9:00 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#20) -
Mike Emeigh
(e-mail)
"I said it once, and I'll say it again: why does MLB simply not have a link on their site that tells the fansite operators what they should and should not do? "
Often major corporations post guidelines on their Web site as to how their trademarked and copyrighted material may be used. There's no reason for MLB not to do the same.
-- MWE
Posted 9:05 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#21) -
Mike Emeigh
(e-mail)
Whoops! At the bottom of MLB.com's front page (in small print) the following disclaimer appears:
"The following are trademarks or service marks of Major League Baseball entities and may be used only with permission of Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. or the relevant Major League Baseball entity: Major League, Major League Baseball, MLB, the silhouetted batter logo, World Series, National League, American League, Division Series, League Championship Series, All-Star Game, and the names, nicknames, logos, uniform designs, color combinations, and slogans designating the Major League Baseball clubs and entities, and their respective mascots, events and exhibitions."
-- MWE
Posted 9:21 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#22) -
Elvis
Here's another case of MLB protecting its trademarks.
In San Jose, Matt Nauman reports Gilroy's Indian Motorcycle has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in S.F. against the Indians "over its ability to trademark its name and logos and put them on clothes and toys." Gilroy's Indian Motorcycle General Counsel Gabrielle Gallegos said the Indians and MLBP are "actively opposing our efforts" to obtain registration for trademarks. The two Indians have "co-existed in the public domain for nearly 100 years" (SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS, 6/25).
Posted 9:32 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#23) -
Chris Dial
(e-mail)
Ironside, (and those that follow)
*why* must a threat be the first contact? "Generally" and "usual course" don't make it not "bullying".
Is there some reason MLB can't start with "Excuse me, but (insert website here) has some trademark infringements here. They are _, _ and _. Please clean them up. If you would like information on how to comply, please call me at_. We'll check back with you in a month."
My neighbor has his fence on my property. Should I open with a threatening legal action, or should I mention it to him and ask him to move it, with an explanation of why I have to ask him to move it? It's basically a matter of civility and expecting to get along in the future.
Posted 10:00 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#24) -
Shredder
I don't know, Chris. If I'm your neighbor, I probably listen to you and your explanation, and assuming we have a good neighborly relationship, I may agree to move it for the sake of that relationship (although I would want to know my legal standing). If I ran a website, and got a message like the one you described from MLB, I'd probably toss it. But that's just me.
Posted 10:01 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#25) -
Average American
But the USA Today is so colorful and uses pie charts and graphs to show me stuff. Also, I never have to read that much because the articles are so wonderfully short and to the point, not a lot of mumbo jumbo analysis about things I don't really understand.
Posted 10:17 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#26) -
tangotiger
(e-mail)
(homepage)
Mike, my comment was specifically for how fansites can co-exist with MLB. That disclaimer, if prominent might even make a potential fansite operator not even put up his site in the first place.
MLB should have a policy that says:
"We love fansites. We encourage everyone to put up a fansite. It doesn't have to be as good as Ray Kerby's site. It doesn't even have to be as good as even mlb.com. But, if you are going to use logos, marks, team names, etc, etc, etc, this is what you should do to comply:
xxx
yyy
zzz
As well, a link back to mlb.com or the team's official site should be placed at the top, with the disclaimer that your site is unofficial, while our sites are the official ones."
There you go, mlb.com. Use this in good health, go promote yourself with goodwill, instead of what Selig and the people who hire the lawyers do.
Posted 11:25 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#27) -
Ray Kerby
(e-mail)
(homepage)
"Gilroy's Indian Motorcycle General Counsel Gabrielle Gallegos said the Indians and MLBP are "actively opposing our efforts" to obtain registration for trademarks"
AMAZING!!!
Does MLB really think that it owns a trademark on the word "Indian"? This is the attitude that is the problem. We are bigger than you, so we can sue you to stop doing something perfectly bigger because we think that there is a remote chance that some clueless moron might, on a particularly stupid day, think that there is a connection between a motorcycle shop and a baseball team.
Posted 11:27 a.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#28) -
Ray Kerby
(e-mail)
(homepage)
DOH! That was supposed to say "perfectly legal" but apparently my hands are not properly attached to my brain.
Posted 12:43 p.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#29) -
Gandhi
"Does MLB really think that it owns a trademark on the word "Indian"? "
Wait 'til the folks in New Delhi get a load of this.......
Posted 1:01 p.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#30) -
Chris Dial
(e-mail)
Shredder,
that's precisely my point. You toss the letter, they send a C&D. They acted civilly and then when you passed on friendly advise, they got serious. Skipping that first part just takes the "bully" route.
Posted 1:53 p.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#31) -
Bud Selig
Tangotiger,
In the future, would you please just go by Tango?
Posted 2:14 p.m.,
August 22, 2002
(#32) -
Christopher Miller
(e-mail)
The whole point here is that we have one more situation in which lawyers "protecting the rights of their clients" advocate strategies that are morally and socialyl repugnant, and poor PR to boot. Lawyers habitually pursue courses of action like legal bullying because if they didn't advocate such things to their clients, they wouldn't be needed. I mean, who needs a fancy lawyer to write a friendly letter asking a fansite to clean up their trademark infringements? I could do it. You could do it. Anyone could do it. (Well, maybe Bud couldn't). People say that the players and the owners are living in their own world. If this is true, it is a world that is the creation of their lawyers--not of money.
If there is a strike, I blame it on the legalistic mindset that Don Fehr (this time) and other negotiators (who were also lawyers) bring to the table. When everything must be "protected" to the hilt, how can you possibly expect people to negotiate?
And seriously, folks, how does a fansite degrade the value of a tradewark? Doesn't it increase it by creating fan interest? Isn't this the napster/music industry argument?
I'd love to see an entirely new thread devoted to the entire concept of copyright and trademark rights. I'm inclined to see those things as devices of exploitation and not protection of actual rights. Look at it this way: Most people think that if the Twins play the Yankees they should get some of the money for the television rights for that game because there is no game without the Twins. But wait--without me, there is no value to the Twins "trademark," so by the same argument, shouldn't I get a piece of the value--i.e. the right to use the damn thing on my fansite?
Every time I think about what the owners (and other people like them) do to us on a regular basis using what is called the legal system, I just want to start cursing.