The Sicatoka

Even if you're right, what they left in public is hanging Brad Berry out to dry with the appearance of conflict of interest and self dealing and giving UND a black eye.

It's a trap. It's the trap. I'm confused.

Berry's choice during voting was ... well, look at the front of the Vegas black jerseys.

Agree. Somewhere around here from the start I said the current primary is better served as a secondary logo.

You have to admit there a difference between a Chinese sweatshop doing it and UND cutting a PO and doing unlicensed usage of someone else's TM.

Again, please educate us.

Ox, McFeely on line one for you.

I'm quite sure this alleged "highspeed Hawkzi kabal" did not: - force Brianna Berry to acquire a TM on NODAK - force Brad Berry to put it on a jersey I'm quite sure folks that favored the third place finisher in the nickname vote accomplished that on their own.

Here we agree. How'd they let a word they don't control onto a jersey.

Berry would be far better off if nary a dollar has struck his hands. Pretty sure a hired consultant isn't looking at a conflict of interest. Sections 1 and 5 are problematic for anyone who knew. https://ndusbpos.sharepoint.com/:w:/s/NDUSPoliciesandProcedures/EaiiN5o2pzVPsqHqQ7mEMXQBAAXzs8NFEWmFd5Z2Fhw0gQ?rtime=Qx90O9rT2kg The way the State policy is written just the appearance of conflict of interest or self dealing invokes the policy.

Quite a few seem jammed up right now.

@Walsh HallFound these: https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:6059yn.3.28 https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:6059yn.3.50

Um ... I said that a while back ... My provide guess may be wrong, but it will be a new vendor. You seem to know so much; do educate us on the master plan.

Listen close and "Harry" sounds like ... "Berry".

You sure? It's listed as a TM here: https://campus.und.edu/brand/licensing.html What's not listed? NODAK

Here's the link to the US Patent and Trademark Office doc from Port's article: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn90202844&docId=APP20200926112211#docIndex=14&page=1 FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE At least as early as 09/07/2020 FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE At least as early as 09/07/2020 The application for TM date signed is 9/26/2020. How's that align to Schlossman's article? And can anyone find where she's used it in commerce (as claimed)?

Fair point. But UND's 2015 "NODAKS" was approved by the US trademark office. (UND released it after it lost based on dates in link.) https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:l442wj.2.2

I won't be surprised if the Herald and the Forum editorial boards are drafting their weekend editorial opinions right now.

Your article is pre-sale and speculating on the sale details. https://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/Daily/Issues/2017/03/16/Marketing-and-Sponsorship/CCM-Adidas.aspx And I notice you left out this detail from your own article:

Got a link to the article you mention? The timeline mention only makes things look worse. (Smoking gun?) The NODAK whites were 2021; the Vegas were 2022.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCM_(ice_hockey) Today Adidas and CCM are separate organizations.

Shoot the messenger? Nice. Or are you saying Schlossman and/or Miller knew and went go-along-get-along. That ain't a good look either.

It is the old postal abbreviation, sorta: No. Dak.

Kinda a detail that matters.

So educate us. Take the teeth right out of Port before the bite gets deeper.