RE: Washington Redskins stripped of trademark protection due to 'disparaging' name
June 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 11:44 pm by Ravenshire.)
(June 18, 2014 at 7:32 pm)Tonus Wrote: Because the NFL depends on merchandising for a shitload of money, and because most merchandising revenue is shared (the Cowboys are the exception), the loss of trademark protection might cost the league some merchandising dollars. That could put enough pressure on them to put pressure on the Redskins' owner to change the name.
This is the NFL we're talking about. The ass-hats who sue over the use of the term "Superbowl," even when the infringement is for a non-profit. If the deadskins do lose their trademark, the NFL will force them to change it immediately.
Just curious, but how are the Cowboys an exception to merchandising revenue sharing?
(June 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: First world problems right here folks. I couldn't care less. Wake me up when the NFL is finally paying taxes.
While the NFL doesn't (non-profit and all that), the individual franchises (where most of the money goes) do.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
