The NFL wants you to think these things are illegal
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
The same situation occurs with the Olympics. The IOC sues entities not because they are worried that someone is going to get confused about their brand but so they can charge those entities for using it in their promotions.
Worth remembering it's tort not crime.
[Not that you're saying it's criminal, just that sometimes illegal is taken to mean criminal whilst torts and such are described instead as unlawful.]
I don't think there's a large moral component to the respective use of each word, it's more of a mathematical concept. That said, odds are "DON'T DO THAT" is usually going to have a stronger moral force behind it than "YOU CAN ONLY DO IT THIS WAY" since people can come up with creative situations that weren't thought of at the time the law was written, and of course it varies based on the situation (people will probably be more pissy if you handle nuclear material in an unlawful way than if you jaywalk for instance).
"Since the Sydney Games in 2000, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has required bidding governments to commit to introducing bespoke legislation to offer a further layer of legal sanction." http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/apr/13/olympics-2012-b...
"Expressions likely to be considered a breach of the rules would include any two of the following list: "Games, Two Thousand and Twelve, 2012, Twenty-Twelve". Using one of those words with London, medals, sponsors, summer, gold, silver or bronze is another likely breach."
It's not 'possibility' it's 'likelihood' of confusion that is considered, amongst other factors - eg http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/244.
The NFL own the RTM (eg serial number 78688906, 77182909, 76572704) and they use it to sell merchandise, TV broadcasts, and clothing respectively. The problem they face is that bowl is a generic term for a [sports] competition (cf http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bowl), and super is also standard language. You can't use trademarks to prevent a person describing something. Moreover when I say "buy my beer to drink whilst you watch the Super Bowl" I'm not using the trademark, I'm using a description of a sports event. If I said "buy my beer to drink whilst you wear your Super Bowl t-shirt" [assuming the owners have registered the mark for clothing] then I'm using the trademark, but I'm still using it to describe the TM owners goods, quite clearly, and so there's no confusion.
Clearly one could create confusion: "drink our Super Bowl beer" uses the term as if it were a trademark, and moreover as if it were the advertisers trademark.
Isn't "super bowl" just a description of a large sports event ; that would seems to lack the distinctiveness normally required of a trademark for anything that's normally related to sports events. The 2 live marks incorporating "super bowl" would make it appear the the USPTO consider use of the term separate to the NFL's mark as allowable [but I'm not sure they've been properly examined as yet].
Isn't "super bowl" just a description of a large sports event ; that would seems to lack the distinctiveness normally required of a trademark for anything that's normally related to sports events.
But registration is prima facie evidence of validity. Quoting 15 USC 1507(b):
A certificate of registration of a mark upon the principal register provided by this Act shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark and of the registration of the mark, of the registrant's ownership of the mark, and of the registrant's exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the certificate, subject to any conditions or limitations stated in the certificate.
What I was trying to intimate was that someone with big enough cajones could challenge the validity of the mark as being merely descriptive of some goods (TV broadcasts, say) rather than being a proper indicator of origin of goods/services.
ref: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0882283, http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=0846056 are some of the early registrations - NFL do appear to have seen off several other registrations and uses to the term "super bowl" (superbol, soul bowl, superbowlz, ...) in court however.
I used "possibility" deliberately. "Likelihood of confusion" is a factor in the legal test for trademark infringement (and generally the most important one). But the mere possibility of confusion might be enough to get a retailer to steer clear of a trademark as a practical rather than legal matter.
I think you would also have a difficult time convincing a judge you were not talking about the NFL championship. Application of the law is rarely a "check the dictionary, guys, he's technically correct" thing. Especially when it comes to things like trademark violations (where it's about confusion to the general public)
You don't need to. Trademark law doesn't prevent you from referring to people's products, nor their origin, it prevents you from selling your own products as if they were someone else's. The judge doesn't care [shouldn't!] that you're referring to the NFL Super Bowl TM - their concern is whether you're suggesting your product comes from the company that own the Super Bowl trademark (for a limited set of products).
Not even an imbecile would think that "buy X to use whilst you do Y" means that the people selling X own Y. "Buy our gloves for your skiing trip to France" - oh clearly that company owns France /s.
It's not about confusion of the general public, it's removed from that. Even if you can show that there is no actual confusion (surveys or whatnot) the judge can still decide there is a likelihood of it (and vice versa).
Here's the referenced blog post:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140331144544/http://wendy.selt....
And here's an archive of the entire series of events:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708110042/http://wendy.selt...
Is there a way to actually see the clip?
In particular, the DMCA (17 USC 512) requires that, in the takedown notice, the sender must state that they have a "good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law", and anyone who "knowingly materially misrepresents under this section that material or activity is infringing" is liable for damages, both to the person who posted the not-actually-infringing content, and to the service provider in their act of taking down and reinstating the content.
This should be a safeguard, and a sufficiently enthusiastic legal team ought to be able to make the argument that there is a lot of knowing material misrepresentation going on. (It's hard for robots to have good-faith beliefs!) But I think very few people have been trying this argument in court. The EFF has been involved in a few, relatively tiny cases, which seem to have been successful, but nobody's been fighting this at scale.
https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.
17 USC 512 is pretty readable: I'd recommend reading through it so you understand what the law is and how best to use it to our ends.
What I'm saying is that no, they won't do it to not harm their business relationship, they'll do it because otherwise, they'd be potentially sued for hosting copyrighted material without authorization.
It doesn't seem like it's in Google's inherent engineering interest to build this system. Of course, that doesn't distinguish from "the law makes them" and "their business relationships make them", but the hypothesis that Google feels beholden to other companies needs a little more evidence.
For instance, Google's 2013 revenue was $50 billion, and $66 billion in 2014, and the entire music industry's 2013 revenue was $7 billion (2014 data isn't out yet). Placating the music industry doesn't seem like particularly well-directed greed.
I would add to the article that while copyright may not limit such speech, contract law is a totally different matter. Check the fine print of you cable contract and/or your NFL package subscription. Even your superbowl tickets (tickets are contracts) will probably have limitations on how you can use NFL content and marks. Everyday citizens may perhaps use the term "super bowl", but someone in a contract with the NFL is not an everyday citizen. The NFL can always come after them for breech of contract, triggering liquidated damages clauses.
This is why many broadcasters avoid using NFL marks even where they have the right to. They have signed contracts in exchange for, perhaps, highlight reals, interview opportunities or other such content from the NFL. This then binds them to whatever speech-limiting terms the NFL may include.
Ethical rules bar giving specific legal advice online, not generally describing the law. Tons and tons of attorneys post general advice about what you should and shouldn't do. To pick a random one that's the first hit on Google: http://www.bpmlegal.com/tmdodont.html.
On second thought I do think the article made a mistake. Sure, you can VHS the superbowl, but good luck doing that on a modern TV/cable setup. Recording an HD copy will likely involve bypassing encryption or other content protections. Saying that anyone can "tape" the event is an overstatement. Some "taping" is cool, other "taping" may violate any number of rules.
http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/gzw6pe/superb-owl-xlvi...
Update: Keep down-voting all you want. The Forbes article is weak in classifying all of the NFL as one entity. The below link gives a good overview of the structure of the NFL and it's tax exceptions. I'm glad I read it. That said the NFL still shouldn't be a non-profit organization. http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exem...
So, yes, your claim is misleading and your defense of it worse.
So there is a little bit of shadiness going.
But it still doesn't make much sense for even the League Office to be tax-exempt. It doesn't meet any of the general criteria of operation for the public good. It would be hard for the government to address, since that status has a lot of history and the league has a lot of money and goodwill behind it. And there's some complication with player pensions or something. The best scenario would be for the NFL to give it up voluntarily; it wouldn't be a high price to pay to remove a common criticism.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/01/nfl-tax-exem...
Your thoughts?
[1]Separately I remember as a kid seeing a sign at the horseback riding place that said "ride at our own risk". My dad said "oh they just do that to that you won't call a lawyer and start trouble I mean if they leave a trashcan in the way of the horse and you get hurt of course that means nothing....(was a long time ago but that was the gist). Seems similar to that in a much larger way.
They say you can't label column in your database "Cusip" without signing a license agreement with them. Furthermore, such license agreements make you force similar licenses upon all your business partners.
https://www.cusip.com/cusip/cgs-license-fees.htm#cgs-licensi...
as to forcing other business partners to assert that they also are Cusip license holders, I have seen and been asked to sign agreements with such clauses attached.
There are some fairly obvious restrictions to the exemption (for example, you can't directly charge people to see the broadcast), but also some surprisingly specific ones, and there's where you start getting into TV screen sizes:
> if the performance or display is by audiovisual means, any visual portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 4 audiovisual devices, of which not more than one audiovisual device is located in any 1 room, and no such audiovisual device has a diagonal screen size greater than 55 inches, and any audio portion of the performance or display is communicated by means of a total of not more than 6 loudspeakers, of which not more than 4 loudspeakers are located in any 1 room or adjoining outdoor space
(Note: the above are rules for bars/restaurants. There are different rules for other establishments, and much more permissive ones designed to cover private homes and parties)
The Super Bowl is not the only "big game". In fact its not usually even a particularly great game, and its never a rivalry. So saying "Big Game" instead of "Super Bowl" means they can use the ad again, and maybe even for another sport!
Or its a conspiracy theory. That works too.
Why make an ad you can only use once, when you could easily tweak it and be able to reuse it? Like you said, its not like anyone won't know you mean the Super Bowl, when you're talking about the big game on Super Bowl weekend.
I could! Unless I did something ill-advised, like saying "Super Bowl", which in fact does only refer to one game.
Also, compare YouTube for really big numbers...
Whereas if you're just talking about the word 'majority', it's interesting that you consider 14% to be a majority.