Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
Pat Dye Field => War Damn Eagle => Topic started by: Tiger Wench on September 04, 2012, 05:48:43 PM
-
But I am afraid they really are.
(http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1175165/53877941395356531857589.jpg)
Best Academics in the SEC?
Cleanest program in the SEC?
:bugs:
-
Between that and the Missouri Tiger saying that watching Georgia is like watching old man football, both teams are apparently trying to come in with a splash.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure UGA or UF will be able to offer the proper SEC greeting both teams deserve.
-
Between that and the Missouri Tiger saying that watching Georgia is like watching old man football, both teams are apparently trying to come in with a splash.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure UGA or UF will be able to offer the proper SEC greeting both teams deserve.
I am afraid you are right. IF UF chokes, I am going to hear it at work - how Aggy is good for the SEC...
:facepalm:
-
I am afraid you are right. IF UF chokes, I am going to hear it at work - how Aggy is good for the SEC...
:facepalm:
Brace yourself: A&M wins that game.
-
Brace yourself: A&M wins that game.
Like I said - probably. But I will just remind them that FL is not even in the West...
-
Like I said - probably. But I will just remind them that FL is not even in the West...
Tell them they damn sure better win and that the west is like 50 something and 4 over the east in the last 3 or so years...
-
I saw this on EDSBS earlier and thought it was kind of funny. I think A&M is wondering aimlessly trying to find a rival/someone to jab with TX out of the picture after jumping from the Big12. The thing that they don't realize is that rivalry in the SEC transcends happy friendly billboards. If an A&M fan ever puts that up in Tuscaloosa they better better avoid every single Krystals in the southeast...
-
I don't think that the SEC is ready for the kind of "humor" and "pranks" that A&M is known for. As a matter of fact, somebody will end up getting their ass kicked over some of their b.s. It will be really funny as long as it isn't me.
-
Brace yourself: A&M wins that game.
I disagree.
-
I don't think that the SEC is ready for the kind of "humor" and "pranks" that A&M is known for. As a matter of fact, somebody will end up getting their ass kicked over some of their b.s. It will be really funny as long as it isn't me.
Why they gonna try to stack some logs on them?
-
Gene Stallings strikes again.
-
But I am afraid they really are.
(http://cdn3.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1175165/53877941395356531857589.jpg)
Best Academics in the SEC?
Cleanest program in the SEC?
:bugs:
I think this was done as a joke by someone who really wants to make Aggie look bad. Notice no trademarks were used. Wouldn't surprise me if Prevail and Ride were behind it or someone of the like.
-
Then there's this:
(https://p.twimg.com/A19icGcCUAAFA38.jpg)
I see a new meme trend beginning from this..
-
I wish they would do this against a team that actually has a decent shot at beating them. It's like taunting Ole Miss at this point.
-
I think this was done as a joke by someone who really wants to make Aggie look bad. Notice no trademarks were used. Wouldn't surprise me if Prevail and Ride were behind it or someone of the like.
#winning
In the run-up to Texas A&M hosting Florida in its first SEC game, a billboard appeared in Gainesville boasting "The Best Academics & Cleanest Program in the SEC." Texas A&M spokesperson Jason Cook clarified the school had no connection to the billboard. "This billboard was not placed by Texas A&M University, and it is certainly not reflective of how we have handled our transition into the SEC," Cook said in a statement. ... Texas A&M has tremendous respect for the University of Florida, and we look forward to hosting the Gators in our first SEC football game this weekend." The billboard, which belongs to Clear Channel Outdoor, was later removed and replaced with an advertisement for the owner.
-
#winning
If TAMU had nothing to do with it, then how can they have it removed?
Supposing a 3rd party bought the billboard, I'd bet that said 3rd party would be fucking irate if its billboard was removed.
-
If TAMU had nothing to do with it, then how can they have it removed?
Supposing a 3rd party bought the billboard, I'd bet that said 3rd party would be fucking irate if its billboard was removed.
Did TAMU have it removed? I just read that it was removed by the billboard owner, Clear Channel. It could have ran its course. Who knows. But it appears it did it's job.
-
If TAMU had nothing to do with it, then how can they have it removed?
Supposing a 3rd party bought the billboard, I'd bet that said 3rd party would be fucking irate if its billboard was removed.
Not if TAMU name was on the billboard without their approval. I would think TAMU would have every right to have that taken down.
-
Not if TAMU name was on the billboard without their approval. I would think TAMU would have every right to have that taken down.
I didn't see their name on the billboard.
And I didn't see where they had it removed.
This was done by a 3rd party....and not someone who supports TAMU. Not even Aggie is this dumb.
-
No TAMU logo or other (known) trademarks.
[Said without review of the contract] I wouldn't think that CC can remove a billboard (that has presumably been paid for) simply because someone complains, in the absence of explicitly offensive material.
-
No TAMU logo or other (known) trademarks.
[Said without review of the contract] I wouldn't think that CC can remove a billboard (that has presumably been paid for) simply because someone complains, in the absence of explicitly offensive material.
Aggie Nation? I would imagine that is copyrighted in some way...
-
Aggie Nation? I would imagine that is copyrighted in some way...
It's like I was about to type it, but now I don't have to.
-
Aggie Nation? I would imagine that is copyrighted in some way...
Who would want to copyright something that ghey?
-
Aggie Nation? I would imagine that is copyrighted in some way...
I doubt DWard ever got approval/licensing from Auburn to call his shitty little site: AUNation.
Just sayin.
-
I doubt DWard ever got approval/licensing from Auburn to call his shitty little site: AUNation.
Just sayin.
There is a difference, and technically Auburn could seize that if they desired, they could also seize our domain. Not worth their effort though.
-
Auburn owns trademarks on the following:
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/trademarks.jpg)
-
Auburn owns trademarks on the following:
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/trademarks.jpg)
O rly?
There is one on there that jumps out at me...
-
If aTm didn't like the billboard, one phone call to Clear Channel would probably be all it would take.
I'm sure Clear Channel has trademark infringement in their billboard contract. Thereby allowing them to take it down.
-
O rly?
There is one on there that jumps out at me...
DWWD David Ward Would Do?
-
O rly?
There is one on there that jumps out at me...
I know Auburn Arena ...I was so looking forward to making an exclusive Auburn Basketball web site.
-
If aTm didn't like the billboard, one phone call to Clear Channel would probably be all it would take.
I'm sure Clear Channel has trademark infringement in their billboard contract. Thereby allowing them to take it down.
That may be a policy that cuts both ways.
Suppose TAMU objects and CC obliges by taking the board down. Suppose that the lessee of the board sues TAMU and wins...now CC is subject to liability for the loss of exposure/breach of contract with the lessee.
-
Auburn owns trademarks on the following:
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/trademarks.jpg)
Where are all of the AUsome Terry Bowden phrases?
-
That may be a policy that cuts both ways.
Suppose TAMU objects and CC obliges by taking the board down. Suppose that the lessee of the board sues TAMU and wins...now CC is subject to liability for the loss of exposure/breach of contract with the lessee.
What would be Lessee's argument in winning said suit against TAMU?
I love it when you talk, lawyer.
-
If aTm didn't like the billboard, one phone call to Clear Channel would probably be all it would take.
I'm sure Clear Channel has trademark infringement in their billboard contract. Thereby allowing them to take it down.
It wasn't "Aggie Nation" that did it. It was the "Whoop!" that is in question (not sure why). It is being discussed to see if it is a trademark violation, so in the meantime it was taken down to be on the safe side.
-
Where are all of the AUsome Terry Bowden phrases?
They were so AUthentic
-
They were so AUthentic
The AUdacity of all of ya's.
-
What would be Lessee's argument in winning said suit against TAMU?
I love it when you talk, lawyer.
If TAMU cannot establish ownership of any of the phrases/colors/etc on the billboard, they lose.
There must be infringement (or, at the very least, the possibility of confusion). Those are issues for a judge to decide in the absence of clear ownership of "Aggie Nation", "Whoop!" (whatever the fuck that is), or some other aspect of the content of the billboard.
-
If TAMU cannot establish ownership of any of the phrases/colors/etc on the billboard, they lose.
There must be infringement (or, at the very least, the possibility of confusion). Those are issues for a judge to decide in the absence of clear ownership of "Aggie Nation", "Whoop!" (whatever the fuck that is), or some other aspect of the content of the billboard.
The color of the board.
It would be hard for the lessee to win. To prove he was not referring to TAMU.
This is assuming BTW that either of those two phrases were indeed trademarked.
-
The AUdacity of all of ya's.
You, sir, have a bad AttitUde
-
(http://d2om8tvz4lgco4.cloudfront.net/archive/x545139326/g12c000000000000000a04f38881644b265bf6b862e997d52d0200ba274.jpg)
I frown on your shenanigans
-
If TAMU cannot establish ownership of any of the phrases/colors/etc on the billboard, they lose.
There must be infringement (or, at the very least, the possibility of confusion). Those are issues for a judge to decide in the absence of clear ownership of "Aggie Nation", "Whoop!" (whatever the fuck that is), or some other aspect of the content of the billboard.
Maroon....You gotta be kiddin. They can trademark Maroon?
“To protect any trademark we’ll take it down, and if they resolve it, we’re happy to put it back up,†said Jim Cullinan, head of communications for Clear Channel.
Texas A&M is hosting the University of Florida on Saturday in the Aggies’ first SEC football game. The billboard is “not in line with how we have handled our transition to the SEC,†said Jason Cook, Texas A&M’s vice president for marketing and communications.
Cullinan said a Houston media company representing a group called Aggie Nation bought the billboard. But Cook said the university has a “strong suspicion†that it was not placed there by anyone affiliated with Texas A&M or its supporters.
“Texas A&M fans do not refer to themselves as the Aggie Nation … We refer to ourselves either as the Aggie Network or the Twelfth Man,†Cook said.
The billboard’s use of the Texas A&M’s maroon color and the term Aggies violated the university’s trademark, the cease-and-desist letter alleged
-
The color of the board.
Maybe...maybe not. The color would have to be a spot on match to be protectable. I can't decide whether it is. I guess if CC used "TAMU Maroon" to paint the board, then they knew they had to take it down. My guess is that the color is some other shade.
It would be hard for the lessee to win. To prove he was not referring to TAMU.
Maybe...maybe not. IP law is very technical.
-
The color of the board.
It would be hard for the lessee to win. To prove he was not referring to TAMU.
This is assuming BTW that either of those two phrases were indeed trademarked.
I agree that they are saying Maroon use was a main reason, but can someone seriously trademark a somewhat commonplace color??
-
Maybe...maybe not. The color would have to be a spot on match to be protectable. I can't decide whether it is. I guess if CC used "TAMU Maroon" to paint the board, then they knew they had to take it down. My guess is that the color is some other shade.
Maybe...maybe not. IP law is very technical.
So they'll change Aggie to Aggee or Aggey or Aggy and the color to beige or light red. Problem solved. Now what TAMU?
-
(http://d2om8tvz4lgco4.cloudfront.net/archive/x545139326/g12c000000000000000a04f38881644b265bf6b862e997d52d0200ba274.jpg)
I frown on your shenanigans
ZIPS MUTHAFUCKER!
-
The only reason I know of what I speak is because of the shit with our store.
Being an off shade doesn't matter, it is the use of the color with the terms.
I'll give an example, we had TigersX stuff on the shop, had nothing to do with Auburn University. However the fact that this is clearly a dedicated Auburn site, and we were selling the merchandise that was orange and blue, with the term tigers on it, they could shut us down.
-
Maybe...maybe not. IP law is very technical.
I was referring to the billboard lessee.
-
I was referring to the billboard lessee.
Me, too.
The only reason I know of what I speak is because of the shit with our store.
Being an off shade doesn't matter, it is the use of the color with the terms.
I'll give an example, we had TigersX stuff on the shop, had nothing to do with Auburn University. However the fact that this is clearly a dedicated Auburn site, and we were selling the merchandise that was orange and blue, with the term tigers on it, they could shut us down.
Understand that the school can bully. In the case of TigersX, it was a two-party fight. Here, though, there is a third, supposedly innocent, party. TAMU can threaten, but CC has to consider the liability it might owe to the lessee if CC pulls down what is, ultimately legit, billboard.
-
Me, too.
Where does IP come into play with a billboard?
-
Where does IP come into play with a billboard?
IP (intellectual property) is an umbrella term encompassing trademarks, copyrights and patents.
-
Understand that the school can bully. In the case of TigersX, it was a two-party fight. Here, though, there is a third, supposedly innocent, party. TAMU can threaten, but CC has to consider the liability it might owe to the lessee if CC pulls down what is, ultimately legit, billboard.
Actually there was a third party involved in our case as well. The shirt company. However, they would not be held liable because if you read their agreement anything that is trademarked can not be produced. You must check a box saying you have read and agree to this.
Would this also not be the case for ClearChannel?
Bottom line is could I have sued...yes
Could I have won...debatable
Would I spend the money to do so...hell no you fuckers don't buy enough shirts.
Bottom line I think I would have had a stronger case to fight back then these billboard folks do.
-
Is this kind of like one of Chadskins' twitter battles?
-
IP (intellectual property) is an umbrella term encompassing trademarks, copyrights and patents.
Sorry we had jumped around and were talking about URL domain as well so I was thinking IP address...youse done got me confoosed with your lawyerin jargon.
-
Actually there was a third party involved in our case as well. The shirt company. However, they would not be held liable because if you read their agreement anything that is trademarked can not be produced. You must check a box saying you have read and agree to this.
Would this also not be the case for ClearChannel?
Probably....I addressed that previously. However, in the case of a "gray area" (where the trademark is not explicit and requires a court to rule as to ownership), CC is operating at its own peril to cave to TAMU's demand.
Bottom line is could I have sued...yes
Could I have won...debatable
Would I spend the money to do so...hell no you fuckers don't buy enough shirts.
Bottom line I think I would have had a stronger case to fight back then these billboard folks do.
Maybe....maybe not. Lawsuits are funny animals.
-
Maybe....maybe not. Lawsuits are funny animals.
Like a Liger?
-
Like a Liger?
Nothing funny about that sumbitch.
Now balloons that blow up into funny shapes...like round...H.I.larious.
-
Jaguar Shark?
-
Maroon....You gotta be kiddin. They can trademark Maroon?
No, it's the combination of the color maroon along with the term Aggies. If they were just to use the color maroon on a billboard, there would be no infringement; you can't (in general) trademark a color by itself. There usually has to be some other significance to the color, or a specific color scheme, etc. But when you combine enough elements together so that the viewer of the billboard would reasonably assume it is endorsed by Texas A&M, the overall use of those elements causes consumer confusion and is therefore infringement.
Also, you don't have to register a trademark in order to have it protected. If you can show that you've used the trademark in commerce, it's yours. You may be limited geographically in regard to where you can use the trademark if you don't have it nationally registered, depending upon whether anyone has used the trademark in certain regions prior to you.
-
No, it's the combination of the color maroon along with the term Aggies. If they were just to use the color maroon on a billboard, there would be no infringement; you can't (in general) trademark a color by itself. There usually has to be some other significance to the color, or a specific color scheme, etc. But when you combine enough elements together so that the viewer of the billboard would reasonably assume it is endorsed by Texas A&M, the overall use of those elements causes consumer confusion and is therefore infringement.
I think I said that about seven posts ago and I didn't go to a fancy lawyerin school.
The only reason I know of what I speak is because of the shit with our store.
Being an off shade doesn't matter, it is the use of the color with the terms.
I'll give an example, we had TigersX stuff on the shop, had nothing to do with Auburn University. However the fact that this is clearly a dedicated Auburn site, and we were selling the merchandise that was orange and blue, with the term tigers on it, they could shut us down.
-
No, it's the combination of the color maroon along with the term Aggies. If they were just to use the color maroon on a billboard, there would be no infringement; you can't (in general) trademark a color by itself. There usually has to be some other significance to the color, or a specific color scheme, etc. But when you combine enough elements together so that the viewer of the billboard would reasonably assume it is endorsed by Texas A&M, the overall use of those elements causes consumer confusion and is therefore infringement.
Also, you don't have to register a trademark in order to have it protected. If you can show that you've used the trademark in commerce, it's yours. You may be limited geographically in regard to where you can use the trademark if you don't have it nationally registered, depending upon whether anyone has used the trademark in certain regions prior to you.
Like I said, I suspect they will change some letters and colors around and repost it at some point.
-
I think I said that about seven posts ago and I didn't go to a fancy lawyerin school.
Oh, you said something? I didn't notice...
Like I said, I suspect they will change some letters and colors around and repost it at some point.
The problem is that the billboard loses its humor and purpose if people can't recognize it as a reference to Texas A&M. So they have to include enough elements so that the viewer recognizes it as a reference to Texas A&M. And if you include enough elements so that the viewer recognizes it as a reference to Texas A&M, then it's reasonable to conclude that there might be consumer confusion as to the source of the billboard, meaning that the viewer assumes the billboard is promoted/endorsed/created by Texas A&M.
Basically, it's not a matter of whether your trademark is exactly like someone else's; it's a matter of whether your trademark is similar enough so as to cause consumer confusion.
-
Oh, you said something? I didn't notice...
Fuck you and the tiny horse you rode in on.
-
Oh, you said something? I didn't notice...
probably because it was all done in one sentence.
-
probably because it was all done in one sentence.
I <3 you.
-
Fuck you and the tiny horse you rode in on.
What if I were to let you take pictures of my penis?