Popular Post Jackie Treehorn Posted February 10, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted February 10, 2016 12 hours ago, TRex said: I agree fully. Stuff like this just prolongs the day that we eventually move on and finally unite. As long as a few stubbornly cling to the Sioux name we will be stuck in the past. It was voted on, and voted on way too often, so let's embrace the Hawk and just worry about winning championships. A true UND fan would realize this. Everyone is united in cheering on our teams. That is what matters. I have yet to embrace the Fighting Hawks name and not sure that I will anytime soon. If that makes me a false fan, so be it. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneySIOUX Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Just now, Jackie Treehorn said: Everyone is united in cheering on our teams. That is what matters. I have yet to embrace the Fighting Hawks name and not sure that I will anytime soon. If that makes me a false fan, so be it. Precisely. Just a joke that people think our fandom is less because of our affection for the Sioux name. Asinine. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hawkster Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Just now, stoneySIOUX said: Precisely. Just a joke that people think our fandom is less because of our affection for the Sioux name. Asinine. And booing the Hawks name shows how much affection some people have. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 1 hour ago, siouxforcefans said: Maintain the trademark, so no one else can own it. Maintaining it means using it a minimal amount, which is what these limited releases of clothing are about. We've been talking about this for years - this thread was started in 2013 - so this really shouldn't be news to anyone. Would love to know the exact definition of "maintain" here, in legal terms, including reference to "required sales." The assumption that UND is stocking and selling Fighting Sioux merch simply as a requirement is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 8 minutes ago, stoneySIOUX said: Precisely. Just a joke that people think our fandom is less because of our affection for the Sioux name. Asinine. Yup, you can only refer to the Fighting Hawks. A true fan won't even look at the Sitting Bull Statue or $104 Million arena that is a monument to the Fighting Sioux history. Blow it up and play at Purpur with Fighting Hawk decals because we're true fans. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Cheering for the Fighting Hawks and revering our past great Fighting Sioux legacy and history are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to do both. If you want to continue to embrace the Fighting Sioux nickname then go nuts and do it. If people have an issue with it or criticize you for it, you'll just need to realize that it comes with the new territory moving forward. Just like those that are overtly embracing the new FH nickname have to realize that the dirty looks and the shouting down of their "Go Hawks" cheers with "Sioux Forever" chants is also part of that new territory. For some people, being criticized for trying to hold on to the past is annoying, for others hearing their school's new nickname booed and drowned out by chants is annoying. Both opinions are valid and both feelings are genuine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 26 minutes ago, obborg said: Would love to know the exact definition of "maintain" here, in legal terms, including reference to "required sales." The assumption that UND is stocking and selling Fighting Sioux merch simply as a requirement is laughable. What is the other assumption? They are making minimal money off the licensing of limited edition releases that have a very limited run, so it definitely isn't that. As was previously stated, it has been known since the settlement agreement became public that they had to maintain ownership (which can only be done through use) and that was mandated by the NCAA. UND made it clear how they would do that 2 1/2 years ago when the had the first run of shirts with the geometric logo and press release announcing the Dacotah Legacy Collection. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 8 minutes ago, jdub27 said: What is the other assumption? They are making minimal money off the licensing of limited edition releases that have a very limited run, so it definitely isn't that. As was previously stated, it has been known since the settlement agreement became public that they had to maintain ownership (which can only be done through use) and that was mandated by the NCAA. UND made it clear how they would do that 2 1/2 years ago when the had the first run of shirts with the geometric logo and press release announcing the Dacotah Legacy Collection. I think we're unfortunately going to have this same debate "blow up" every time UND rolls out the legacy collection regardless of how clear UND tried/tries to be in detailing the reasons behind it. It will be a reoccurring dream moving forward with new people who weren't paying attention noticing it being offered in stores and bringing all this up again. It was painful listening to KNOX radio yesterday afternoon with all the uninformed opinions back and forth between host(s) and callers on this topic. Did a great disservice to what UND is doing, and what it has been mandated to do by the NCAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 7 minutes ago, jdub27 said: What is the other assumption? They are making minimal money off the licensing of limited edition releases that have a very limited run, so it definitely isn't that. As was previously stated, it has been known since the settlement agreement became public that they had to maintain ownership (which can only be done through use) and that was mandated by the NCAA. UND made it clear how they would do that 2 1/2 years ago when the had the first run of shirts with the geometric logo and press release announcing the Dacotah Legacy Collection. Your summary of the situation lacks the depth necessary to answer my question.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneySIOUX Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 47 minutes ago, TRex said: And booing the Hawks name shows how much affection some people have. I've never once booed the Hawks name. And even if I had, I am just as much as a fan as you. So, again, off the high horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneySIOUX Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 10 minutes ago, Teeder11 said: I think we're unfortunately going to have this same debate "blow up" every time UND rolls out the legacy collection regardless of how clear UND tried/tries to be in detailing the reasons behind it. It will be a reoccurring dream moving forward with new people who weren't paying attention noticing it being offered in stores and bringing all this up again. It was painful listening to KNOX radio yesterday afternoon with all the uninformed opinions back and forth between host(s) and callers on this topic. Did a great disservice to what UND is doing, and what it has been mandated to do by the NCAA. I don't disagree with any of this. So, when we all get the opportunity, make sure we educate those who don't understand what's going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 12 minutes ago, jdub27 said: What is the other assumption? To me, an easier, more natural assumption might be that UND was the party motivating the inclusion of a so-called "maintenance clause," Not the NCAA, because why would they give a rat's? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 10, 2016 Author Share Posted February 10, 2016 5 minutes ago, obborg said: Your summary of the situation lacks the depth necessary to answer my question.. Feel free to enlighten me, along with everyone else, on what you're trying to get at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, obborg said: To me, an easier, more natural assumption might be that UND was the party motivating the inclusion of a so-called "maintenance clause," Not the NCAA, because why would they give a rat's? I don't understand why it's a big deal that UND wanted to maintain the trademarks on their intellectual property that they own? It has value and just because they are now the Fighting Hawks doesn't mean they should completely stop trying to capitalize on that value. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post UNDBIZ Posted February 10, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted February 10, 2016 Maintaining the trademarks is about limiting the black market for fighting Sioux gear and providing for a cleaner transition to the new name and logo. They're not making much money off these sales. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UND1983 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, obborg said: Your summary of the situation lacks the depth necessary to answer my question.. You're deep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforcefans Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 16 minutes ago, obborg said: Your summary of the situation lacks the depth necessary to answer my question.. http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/trademark-faqs US Patent office should have the info you need. I expect you're trying to knit-pick something else, but regardless of who included the word "maintain", once the agreement is in place, it must be followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 Just now, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said: I don't understand why it's a big deal that UND wanted to maintain the trademarks on their intellectual property that they own? It has value and just because they are now the Fighting Hawks doesn't mean they should completely stop trying to capitalize on that value. The big deal is that someone somewhere created the impression that UND was simply hog-tied by the NCAA, and selling new FS merch was a requirement. In fact, NCAA strong-arming has been greatly exaggerated throughout this process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, obborg said: The big deal is that someone somewhere created the impression that UND was simply hog-tied by the NCAA, and selling new FS merch was a requirement. In fact, NCAA strong-arming has been greatly exaggerated throughout this process. Huh? Could you be more specific than someone somewhere? And even if that someone somewhere did exaggerate the NCAA's strong-arming, who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 3 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said: Huh? Could you be more specific than someone somewhere? And even if that someone somewhere did exaggerate the NCAA's strong-arming, who cares? So you don't care about the existence of deception? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvdebbies Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 4 minutes ago, obborg said: So you don't care about the existence of deception? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 6 minutes ago, obborg said: So you don't care about the existence of deception? When the source is "someone somewhere"? .......No 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneySIOUX Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 2 minutes ago, iluvdebbies said: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz So how about that UND men's hockey team, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforcefans Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 14 minutes ago, obborg said: The big deal is that someone somewhere created the impression that UND was simply hog-tied by the NCAA, and selling new FS merch was a requirement. In fact, NCAA strong-arming has been greatly exaggerated throughout this process. EDIT: I wrote a reply to you, but then realized you're just working on a point of UND being behind the requirement. Since you're not actually discussing the requirement's existence, or what UND has to do to follow that part of the settlement, I'm just going to step aside and let you continue your endless path. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petey23 Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 54 minutes ago, obborg said: To me, an easier, more natural assumption might be that UND was the party motivating the inclusion of a so-called "maintenance clause," Not the NCAA, because why would they give a rat's? wow. 41 minutes ago, siouxforcefans said: http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/trademark-faqs US Patent office should have the info you need. I expect you're trying to knit-pick something else, but regardless of who included the word "maintain", once the agreement is in place, it must be followed. You can provide a link for them to read but you can't make them understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.