PDA

View Full Version : New low for mlb


soxrme
05-27-2008, 12:31 PM
How low can baseball sink. Now they want little league teams to stop using the names of baseball things. Do moronic lawyers stay up at night thinking of was to irritate people. This is a new low even for them.

doublem23
05-27-2008, 12:34 PM
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

CHIsoxNation
05-27-2008, 12:34 PM
I'm guessing you're referring to baseball team names?

Yeah they started doing that a while ago I believe in the SW burbs. Most teams now are based on their t-shirt color.

Law11
05-27-2008, 12:37 PM
How ridiculous can this get... MLB is making more money than ever and in effort to make a few more cents lets tear away the kids from any affiliation with actual baseball teams.

My nephew plays for the Brewers and now loves the Brewers (for better or worse) but its the fact that he actually follows them because he plays on a little league team that sports their colors is a great thing..

So lets take that away from them..
In an age where baseball fields and sandlots are vacant of kids playing lets break off any affiliation with the kids that actually love the game.

Irishsox1
05-27-2008, 12:40 PM
The NBA also does this. For example, your team can have the colors red and black but they can't be called the Bulls, so the team is called Chicago.

They will let you use them, but you have to pay which nobody wants to.

CHIsoxNation
05-27-2008, 12:42 PM
How ridiculous can this get... MLB is making more money than ever and in effort to make a few more cents lets tear away the kids from any affiliation with actual baseball teams.

My nephew plays for the Brewers and now loves the Brewers (for better or worse) but its the fact that he actually follows team because he plays on a little league team that sports their colors is a great thing..

So lets take that away from them..
In an age where baseball fields and sandlots are vacant of kids playing lets break off any affiliation with the kids that actually love the game.

I agree. I started off playing for the Brewers, Orioles, Red Sox, and White Sox and loved getting my pictures taken in those uniforms. When I played fall ball in high school is when they started giving us colors. It eventually trickled down to the little league guys too.

WhiteSox5187
05-27-2008, 01:25 PM
:tool
"I'm sorry, but there's a profit to be had."

South Side Irish
05-27-2008, 01:42 PM
Link?

This would be a dumb move if true. It's GREAT promo for a team to have little kids playin in their unis. A few kids, as already proven, get hooked on a team and follow them simply because they got to wear their hat. Some leagues, like out here in Naperville and in Downers Grove (I think) are "licensed" with MLB logos and all. Is that the intent? Because I'm sure these to suburbs can afford it, but lots of others can't.

doogiec
05-27-2008, 01:45 PM
It really has little to do with the money that can be made off Little League teams, and more to do with trademark law.

Under trademark law, if you permit someone to use your trademark without controlling the quality and use of the trademark, your trademark can be declared completely invalid. For example, if a little league team creates a jersey with the iron on letters "White Sox" across the front, and a lawyer can claim the White Sox did nothing to protect the trademark, it can be invalid for all uses and therefore wide open for EVERYONE to use the name without the team's permission.

Teams make a LOT of money of their merchandise, I wouldn't expect them to risk tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of dollars just so little kids can say they played for a team with the same name.

DumpJerry
05-27-2008, 01:45 PM
I took delight that my cousin who is a MAJOR Cub fan had to watch his son play Little League for......the White Sox!:D:

I guess they'll be the Palehose now.:wink:

DumpJerry
05-27-2008, 01:46 PM
It really has little to do with the money that can be made off Little League teams, and more to do with trademark law.

Under trademark law, if you permit someone to use your trademark without controlling the quality and use of the trademark, your trademark can be declared completely invalid. For example, if a little league team creates a jersey with the iron on letters "White Sox" across the front, and a lawyer can claim the White Sox did nothing to protect the trademark, it can be invalid for all uses and therefore wide open for EVERYONE to use the name without the team's permission.

Teams make a LOT of money of their merchandise, I wouldn't expect them to risk tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of dollars just so little kids can say they played for a team with the same name.
Spot on. Ask the people at Bayer about that (Aspirin) and Xerox ("we're a noun, not a verb")

The Immigrant
05-27-2008, 01:48 PM
It really has little to do with the money that can be made off Little League teams, and more to do with trademark law.

Under trademark law, if you permit someone to use your trademark without controlling the quality and use of the trademark, your trademark can be declared completely invalid. For example, if a little league team creates a jersey with the iron on letters "White Sox" across the front, and a lawyer can claim the White Sox did nothing to protect the trademark, it can be invalid for all uses and therefore wide open for EVERYONE to use the name without the team's permission.

Teams make a LOT of money of their merchandise, I wouldn't expect them to risk tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of dollars just so little kids can say they played for a team with the same name.

Those are all fair points, but this has been going on for decades without anyone arguing that MLB has waived the right to enforce its trademarks. The fact that it has suddenly become an issue now is what leads me to believe that it's simply an effort to extract a few bucks from little league.

doublem23
05-27-2008, 01:49 PM
It really has little to do with the money that can be made off Little League teams, and more to do with trademark law.

Under trademark law, if you permit someone to use your trademark without controlling the quality and use of the trademark, your trademark can be declared completely invalid. For example, if a little league team creates a jersey with the iron on letters "White Sox" across the front, and a lawyer can claim the White Sox did nothing to protect the trademark, it can be invalid for all uses and therefore wide open for EVERYONE to use the name without the team's permission.

Teams make a LOT of money of their merchandise, I wouldn't expect them to risk tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of dollars just so little kids can say they played for a team with the same name.

That's obviously incorrect. MLB and it's evil legal team were just sitting around thinking of ways to ruin the children's fun.

Those are all fair points, but this has been going on for decades without anyone arguing that MLB has waived the right to enforce its trademarks. The fact that it has suddenly become an issue now is what leads me to believe that it's simply an effort to extract a few bucks from little league.

Some leagues, like the one I played in as a kid at Norwood Park, paid for the licensed stuff.

spiffie
05-27-2008, 01:50 PM
It really has little to do with the money that can be made off Little League teams, and more to do with trademark law.

Under trademark law, if you permit someone to use your trademark without controlling the quality and use of the trademark, your trademark can be declared completely invalid. For example, if a little league team creates a jersey with the iron on letters "White Sox" across the front, and a lawyer can claim the White Sox did nothing to protect the trademark, it can be invalid for all uses and therefore wide open for EVERYONE to use the name without the team's permission.

Teams make a LOT of money of their merchandise, I wouldn't expect them to risk tens (maybe hundreds) of millions of dollars just so little kids can say they played for a team with the same name.
You can protect your trademarks without creating a fee structure that handicaps leagues from being able to deal with it. I don't think anyone has issues with the idea of leagues having to pay a fee for the use of the names since it is an important legal point. But why not make it a token fee of the cost of the paperwork or something like that?

Ava83
05-27-2008, 01:50 PM
I saw it earlier today and just now had a heck of a time finding the link.

http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/971947,4_1_JO27_LOGOS_S1.article

It's Dankerific
05-27-2008, 02:07 PM
A $1 per league sounds about right to protect the trademark.

doogiec
05-27-2008, 02:12 PM
You can protect your trademarks without creating a fee structure that handicaps leagues from being able to deal with it. I don't think anyone has issues with the idea of leagues having to pay a fee for the use of the names since it is an important legal point. But why not make it a token fee of the cost of the paperwork or something like that?

MLB does sell some fairly cheap shirts (under $20) to youth leagues. The leagues that are complaining just flat out prefer to pay nothing, or buy from someone other than an MLB licensee.

I think most of the complaining comes from the people who actually made the cheaper shirts in the first place.

PatK
05-27-2008, 03:40 PM
When I played LL, our team names were whoever sponsored us.

There was Ace Hardware, Dairy Queen, First National Bank, etc.

Not until my last year in LL did we use MLB team names. And our uniforms and hats didn't have the team's name or logo on them.

daveeym
05-27-2008, 03:53 PM
MLB does sell some fairly cheap shirts (under $20) to youth leagues. The leagues that are complaining just flat out prefer to pay nothing, or buy from someone other than an MLB licensee.

I think most of the complaining comes from the people who actually made the cheaper shirts in the first place.
Pfft, don't try to gaslight them, it's the big bad MLB that's just being unreasonable.

seventyseven
05-27-2008, 05:19 PM
Spot on. Ask the people at Bayer about that (Aspirin) and Xerox ("we're a noun, not a verb")

Those trademarks may be unenforceable because they are now generic terms used by the public to describe goods/actions generally, instead of products/services of a particular brand. Kleenex is another example of this.

Little league use of MLB team names and logo does not present a risk of making a team's mark generic.