http://www.moosedenied.com/buy-the-sky-and-sell-the-sky-and-bleed-the-sky-and-tell-the-sky/ We are all out of juice. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:06:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://www.moosedenied.com/buy-the-sky-and-sell-the-sky-and-bleed-the-sky-and-tell-the-sky/#comment-11465 Claude Coupee Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:55:07 +0000 http://www.moosedenied.com/?p=2216#comment-11465 Has anybody contributed to the site yet? Has anybody contributed to the site yet?

]]> http://www.moosedenied.com/buy-the-sky-and-sell-the-sky-and-bleed-the-sky-and-tell-the-sky/#comment-11458 Chris Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:07:17 +0000 http://www.moosedenied.com/?p=2216#comment-11458 That is a very poor analysis. That is a very poor analysis.

]]> http://www.moosedenied.com/buy-the-sky-and-sell-the-sky-and-bleed-the-sky-and-tell-the-sky/#comment-11457 Chris Mon, 01 Feb 2010 15:59:38 +0000 http://www.moosedenied.com/?p=2216#comment-11457 I don't give a shit. And if I were forced to give a shit for .5 seconds, I'd say that I don't blame the NFL for doing that, nor do I blame Fleurty Girl for reacting the way they did (see Rick's chicken salad out of chicken shit comment).   But I really, really don't give a shit. If this happened in June, maybe I would, but not the fucking week before the Superbowl. Write about that soon or -rep:hihi: I don’t give a shit.
And if I were forced to give a shit for .5 seconds, I’d say that I don’t blame the NFL for doing that, nor do I blame Fleurty Girl for reacting the way they did (see Rick’s chicken salad out of chicken shit comment).
 
But I really, really don’t give a shit. If this happened in June, maybe I would, but not the fucking week before the Superbowl. Write about that soon or -rep:hihi:

]]> http://www.moosedenied.com/buy-the-sky-and-sell-the-sky-and-bleed-the-sky-and-tell-the-sky/#comment-11456 geaux saints Mon, 01 Feb 2010 00:01:05 +0000 http://www.moosedenied.com/?p=2216#comment-11456 Sorry, but if you're looking at the law, the entire bulk of your polemic here misses the point. The NFL never, ever had a right to stick their noses into this in the first place with Storyville and Fleurty Girl. The fight was either between them and the Monisteres OR the Monisteres and the merchants. The trademark infringement test is two-pronged: 1) association with trademark and 2) first commercial use of the phrase. The NFL passes prong one, but fails prong two. Thus, no dice. Not to mention the fact that the suit the Monisteres brought against a competitor in 1983 resulted in a ruling that the phrase, even when combined with Saints colors or symbology, is public domain. That case also establishes that the NFL was not the first commercial user of the phrase. I'm almost done with my law degree here, so maybe I'm still too focused on "the rules" and "applying them properly" to see the "spirit" of the NFL's argument. But as far as I see it, as long as the Monisteres and the merchants have an agreement, the NFL has no place here. They bullied, they overreached, and most importantly, they misread the law. I know Commissioner Goodell's economics degree from a middling liberal-arts school probably didn't include a business-law class, so maybe that's why. No one's trying to scam anyone, the merchants aren't taking any coin out of the NFL's coffers, and this screed misses the point COMPLETELY. Sorry, but if you’re looking at the law, the entire bulk of your polemic here misses the point. The NFL never, ever had a right to stick their noses into this in the first place with Storyville and Fleurty Girl. The fight was either between them and the Monisteres OR the Monisteres and the merchants.
The trademark infringement test is two-pronged: 1) association with trademark and 2) first commercial use of the phrase. The NFL passes prong one, but fails prong two. Thus, no dice. Not to mention the fact that the suit the Monisteres brought against a competitor in 1983 resulted in a ruling that the phrase, even when combined with Saints colors or symbology, is public domain. That case also establishes that the NFL was not the first commercial user of the phrase.
I’m almost done with my law degree here, so maybe I’m still too focused on “the rules” and “applying them properly” to see the “spirit” of the NFL’s argument. But as far as I see it, as long as the Monisteres and the merchants have an agreement, the NFL has no place here. They bullied, they overreached, and most importantly, they misread the law. I know Commissioner Goodell’s economics degree from a middling liberal-arts school probably didn’t include a business-law class, so maybe that’s why. No one’s trying to scam anyone, the merchants aren’t taking any coin out of the NFL’s coffers, and this screed misses the point COMPLETELY.

]]> http://www.moosedenied.com/buy-the-sky-and-sell-the-sky-and-bleed-the-sky-and-tell-the-sky/#comment-11455 hakim drops the ball Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:26:06 +0000 http://www.moosedenied.com/?p=2216#comment-11455 Michelle makes a point about people intentionally buying the "knock off" t-shirts. And I concede that Wang makes a damn good argument throughout this whole thing.  Maybe there's a way the t-shirt folk could pony up, say, a 10 percent licensing fee to the NFL, and in exchange the merchandisers would be allowed to use the team name on those shirts, but couldn't use words like "NFL" or "Super Bowl" on them? And can I just add that "embiggened" is  a perfectly crumulent word? Michelle makes a point about people intentionally buying the “knock off” t-shirts.
And I concede that Wang makes a damn good argument throughout this whole thing.  Maybe there’s a way the t-shirt folk could pony up, say, a 10 percent licensing fee to the NFL, and in exchange the merchandisers would be allowed to use the team name on those shirts, but couldn’t use words like “NFL” or “Super Bowl” on them?
And can I just add that “embiggened” is  a perfectly crumulent word?

]]> http://www.moosedenied.com/buy-the-sky-and-sell-the-sky-and-bleed-the-sky-and-tell-the-sky/#comment-11454 Michelle Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:14:34 +0000 http://www.moosedenied.com/?p=2216#comment-11454 Honestly, I get it.  I get the trademark issue and how she's making out like a bandit and all that.  I get it, I do. What sent me off the deep end was their quote about protecting the little people from being "misled" into believing they were buying official licensed Saints merchandise.  Don't you (or at least most people) <em>know </em>you're buying a knock-off when you buy a knock-off?  Aren't you usually <em>intentionally </em>buying a knock-off for whatever reason - cost, supporting local merchandisers, sticking it to the man, or whatever other reason you come up with? The idea that people are stupid, easily misled, and need someone to drive them to the corporate machine's saving grace is what ticks me off.  Even if it is, in part, true.  You can't expect to say it like that and not have people get pissed.  If they'd left out "misled," maybe they'd get a pass.  Probably not, but maybe. Honestly, I get it.  I get the trademark issue and how she’s making out like a bandit and all that.  I get it, I do.
What sent me off the deep end was their quote about protecting the little people from being “misled” into believing they were buying official licensed Saints merchandise.  Don’t you (or at least most people) know you’re buying a knock-off when you buy a knock-off?  Aren’t you usually intentionally buying a knock-off for whatever reason – cost, supporting local merchandisers, sticking it to the man, or whatever other reason you come up with?
The idea that people are stupid, easily misled, and need someone to drive them to the corporate machine’s saving grace is what ticks me off.  Even if it is, in part, true.  You can’t expect to say it like that and not have people get pissed.  If they’d left out “misled,” maybe they’d get a pass.  Probably not, but maybe.

]]>