The Sicatoka

Not much there beyond the known. https://mblsportal.sos.state.mn.us/Business/SearchDetails?filingGuid=6e60f9ce-55ed-ea11-91a0-00155d32b905

Crap. I just gave away another million dollar idea ... Say, when's the first time there was a public statement about a NODAK jersey for the team? I thought it was shortly before they debuted on-ice, like fall 2021.

Generally speaking, President Armacost should be expediting (diagonal) HAWKS replacements (assuming no TM infringements obviously).

Tarek Howard. (All three seasons Brad was at UND.) https://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/pdisplay.php?pid=364 It was in Port's first article. The "entity" is NODAK LLC.

'83, need I remind you ...

I'm not sure I'd want to be on the ice with him at this point. Imagine being the guy that bumps him and he never gets up.

If NODAK LLC was benevolently magnanimous and no fiscal gain came from the TM, shouldn't NODAK LLC be able to show a licensing agreement with a vendor or retailer that defines "$0" for TM usage. NODAK LLC would look like heroes (though 26 months late) if they could produce that. Showing the books since Sep 2020 would make their motives clear and prove the benevolence claim. And now that UND has control of the TM, wouldn't existing contractual licensing agreements be transferred to UND as new owner? Suddenly, any licensing usage of NODAK since the TM date (Sep 2020) has become FOIA discoverable as they are now UND contracts.

From UND's release last night: So a vendor pitches a design in April 2020. UND does the routine TM checks: All good. UND did what it should've I guess. Then in September 2020 the LLC is set up and a claim for the word NODAK is made and granted. Isn't scooping that word an "insider" move? How'd the LLC owner, and the attorney that set it up, know that word. Being the LLC is the coach's daughter, the attorney is a former team mate of the coach, and the coach picks jerseys, it's pretty clear. And if this was all benevolent and magnanimous in nature, why only when it sees daylight over two years later is the claimed "never intended for personal profit" TM finally relinquished to UND? Benevolence to me would've been immediate gifting, or at least at first public jersey appearance in falll 2021. Who besides Brianna Berry is NODAK LLC. Is it a sole proprietorship or does she have partners in the LLC? What happened with the TM from Sep 2020 to Dec 2022? UND may not have paid NODAK LLC, but did NODAK LLC receive licensing compensation from some other party (e.g. Adidas) during that window of time? Dodds' statement may have opened more questions than cleared.

https://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/columns/port-und-now-owns-nodak-trademark-says-it-didnt-cost-them-anything There ya go ya big Lubowski.

Did NODAK LLC receive "financial transaction" for licensing from someone other than UND, for example Adidas?

Port or "Staff Reports"? https://www.inforum.com/news/local/und-spokesman-says-he-is-unaware-of-any-compensation-agreements-with-nodak-llc

But that didn't work with the interlocked ND and Notre Dame's TM on it.

We know what he knew because he didn't write you think he knew?

As Frozen4 pointed out in the jersey thread, UND claimed "first use" on the interlocked ND but "Our Lady of South Bend" was first to TM. "Our Lady" owns it no matter UND's "first use" claims.

How would you know that? Rob? Is that really you?

Missed by that much ... whew ...

Will all sports embrace it?

I stand corrected.

Wasn't explicit like in the UND release so you didn't miss it in the Hurled.

You're the knowledge holder on that subject, not I.

So your desktop is covered with rabbit holes to go down! Brilliant!

You have got to be kidding me. Looks like that is "Inactive - Involuntary" since 01/06/2022. https://firststop.sos.nd.gov/search/business

Didn't say we owned it, just used it. (Pattern?) UND claimed first use of the interlock but "Our Lady" got the first TM. Sounds vaguely familiar given the UND release tonight ... History on this topic ain't great for UND. Only thing they've ever had unique and owned by TM is ... Fighting Hawks. < shrug >

The UND release says the LLC surrendered rights to UND: What I don't get is the claim "through the mark’s use over many years". When, before 2021, was NODAK last used? No use in commerce makes the ownership claim go away (just like the NCAA settlement makes UND use the old name in commerce to keep the TM valid and retain ownership).

Because they used NODAK on a jersey 70 years ago they are claiming TM rights? Is there paperwork on that?