Benny Baker

Correct, solid fixture. 13 of 15 games.

He went from a solid fixture in the lineup to never playing again. That tells me the most obvious answer is an off ice issue.

https://www.uscho.com/stats/player/mid,34065/Brent-Johnson/ #6 played 13 of 15 games from Oct 7-Dec 3. Hasnt had a whiff of ice time since. Clearly this was not a performance issue, but some sort of off ice incident that occurred on or around December 3, 2022 or led up to it. Someone, change my mind on this …

The “French Connection”: Martin St Louis and Eric Perrin made ‘96 Vermont’s team one of the forgotten best. Born in Burlington to boot, Ryan St Louis must really have wanted to forge his own path. But yes, I too wonder if he doesn’t end up back home.

Agree. For example, UND recently trademarked the 1950/60s logo with the "UND" arch above the two-crossing hockey sticks. UND already had primary rights to that logo but they made the recent decision to trademark it, nonetheless. Why did they take a different course of action with NODAK?

Jurist? Interesting. Right after independence and integrity, avoiding the “appearance of impropriety”, not just a conflict of interest, is literally the second canon of judicial ethics.

Yeah, I’ll find common ground on the transparency aspect. No one seems to want or be able to answer the obvious question: why did the coach’s daughter trademark NODAK in the first place?

Perhaps because "it became clear that NODAK was an idea that the hockey community latches on to", at least, according to the University's own President. “There was a global pandemic happening in April 2020, so that may have influenced things,” said Armacost. “Going back to our understanding of trademark law, we were the senior users of NODAK, which gives us legal protection. At that point, NODAK was still an experiment. When we sold out of the first 450 NODAK jerseys shortly afterwards, it became clear that NODAK was an idea that the hockey community latches on to. We now have that trademark registered as a consequence of negotiations with NODAK LLC.”

Or Nodak LLC would have been infringing on SRBND LLC's North Dakota registered tradename or, at a minimum, its geographical use of the Nodak trademark on green, black, white clothing apparel in North Dakota anyway: https://www.facebook.com/nodakclothing/ It takes a lot of IP litigation to actually narrow down the owners of trademarks and tradenames when there are competing interests.

Way too much nuance to make a blanket statement that registering a trademark ensures national rights. That is why there is so much IP litigation to resolve these disputes. What is the geographic area that UND does business in? If I am UND's attorney, my argument would be that we're a national university, have students from all 50 states and internationally, and we even wore that Nodak jersey in the state of Nevada. At a minimum, we're certainly a regional school encompassing Minnesota where Nodak LLC is registered.

RIP old Portland Winterhawks logo

Not only that, but also that playing Major Juniors, not the NCAA, is the appropriate path to the NHL.

Who is "they"? Do you have some inside knowledge that there are multiple owners of Nodak LLC?

It's clickbait garbage. Headline misrepresents that UND "now owns trademark" while article concedes "[Nodak] LLC has expressly acknowledged the University's existing rights in the NODAK mark as the senior user." UND owned it all along, even according to the LLC that registered the trademark. Registration of a trademark doesn't necessarily mean ownership. If I registered (recorded) a Warranty Deed in Ward County today claiming to own Rob Port's house, does that mean I am automatically the owner?

Thanks!

Do you know what seasons they wore these? I've seen these jerseys too on eBay and what not, but don't ever recall seeing a UND player wear one.

What years?

Yes, his name is Jason Jenkins.

Haha. I'm not an IP lawyer, so bear with me. (Btw, any of you around here an IP lawyer--we could use one?). But my general understanding is that in the United States, the first person to use a trademark is the presumptive owner, not the first person to file. I say "presumptive" because trademark litigation occurs frequently to determine who owns the trademark; i.e., the first person to use it and where it's being used; the first person to register it and where its being registered (federally or in a state); etc. So UND's position is that it always owned this trademark anyway because it was the first to use it. Nodak LLC, Brianna Berry, nor anyone else was ever an owner of this trademark. Instead, Nodak LLC simply filed a registration for it. But since Nodak LLC was not the owner of the trademark, it apparently agreed to transfer that registration to its actual owner, UND. The significance of this from UND's perspective is that since Nodak LLC never owned the trademark, neither it nor the Berry's would have ever been in a position to profit off of it.

Nodak LLC transferred its registration of the federal trademark to UND. Nodak LLC did NOT transfer ownership of the trademark to UND. UND's position is that it was always the owner of the trademark, not Nodak LLC.

You’d need to see the LLC’s operating agreement, which will contain a schedule of all the members/owners. Unfortunately, those aren’t required to be filed with the state in which the LLC is organized.

Don’t give the Berry daughters the idea to register Hawks LLC and trademark the word “Hawks” though.

Presumptive standard

First to use > first to file is the presumptive standard in America though, right? This is why UND’s position is that it always owned the trademark and Nodak LLC never did.

You missed the point, which is that Nodak clothing is not a novel idea in North Dakota and was, in fact, a trademarked name several—meaning 2 or 3 but not many—years ago.