The Sicatoka

@stoneySIOUXyou're renaming it already to "The Herb Stone Monument"? I barely got the TM paperwork in on "Sterns County Uses of Concrete Exposition Facility".

One action would've headed all of this off: In April 2020, after UND reviewed for trademarks, rather than finding none and assuming they were good, they should've taken the extra step and acquired the trademark then. To assume is to stage for failure.

We were tallying positives.

Failure? The State got transparency. UND got a free trademark.

Listen to the interview. Armacost expects Chaves to complete the investigation and report back. (General gonna General.) And I thought Port was a poor source.

I get your point, but please reconcile how a third place vote-getter is the answer.

70 years ago and today the answer is significantly different, so I get your point.

Did NODAK LLC every directly use the word in commerce or trade? The Uses reads ... exactly like a collegiate licensing agreement usage. Interesting coincidence.

Somebody should've TM'd it for us, with altruistic intentions of course,

Don't they have a "playing" Goldie for every sport?

Here's where I stand beside @iramurphy: My allegiance is to the University of North Dakota. Not some retired name.

Can I get $20 on the over?

"They" the LLC. "They" the owner and her counsel. Do I know if the LLC is more than one named owner? No.

If NODAK LLC "acknowledged the University's existing rights in the NODAK mark as the senior user", why'd they waste their time and money taking a junior or inferior position? What's to gain from that?

The State AG's office. The NDUS/SBHE offices. Next up will probably be the State Auditor (don't get between him and a camera). And the Legislature surely will not let this pass. Other than that, nobody.

Andy found out a week and a half ago after a call from NDUS/SBHE in Bismarck? Interesting.

Kinda cold and windy up there today ... ... oh, not the exterior roof, the roof/ceiling over the suites.

I'd take it in a heartbeat.

I wonder if "Drooling Wombats" is available. It'd be unique.

I don't see anything in here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/undsports.com/documents/2022/8/11/2022_UND_FB_Media_Guide_for_Web.pdf I do find the interlock on shoulders (p138).

I'm numb to being shocked anymore. I have come to expect the next < facepalm >.

Why was NODAK LLC left in such a manner that an easy straight line could be drawn from Brianna Berry to Brad Berry. One more shell or holding company and "presto-gonzo" the trademark disappears in the blizzard of paperwork and no questions ever arise. Did they think no one would notice or care? As it was left it's a terrible look.

Given the interlock history and the agreement to maintain control of the retired moniker, shouldn't UND have expert counsel on staff or retainer?

Mario gonna put on crabby-face and skate 'em today?

The problem is the appearance is enough to trigger NDUS Policy 308.4 (below). It's visible to a message board poster and the media. From September 2020 to yesterday, every time Berry approved a new NODAK jersey, the owner of the TM stood to profit. Now, the assertion is the TM owner did not enforce or gave license freely at no gain to the LLC, but do we have documented proof of the assertion between Sep 2020 and Dec 2022.