NoiseInsideMyHead Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 38 minutes ago, obborg said: The New Sioux gear does demonstrate at the very least a lack of commitment to the re-brand, no? How is this any different from marrying, having kids, divorcing, re-marrying, and having more kids? Not to say that some folks don't screw it up royally, but are you suggesting that it is completely impossible to be a loving parent to both sets of kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said: How is this any different from marrying, having kids, divorcing, re-marrying, and having more kids? Not to say that some folks don't screw it up royally, but are you suggesting that it is completely impossible to be a loving parent to both sets of kids? Your analogy would apply nicely had you not ignored the part where you were forced out of a happy marriage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxperfan7 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 16 minutes ago, obborg said: Same question, conversely: Why must they define it now? Why not simply enjoy the freedom to adapt to changes down the road? It needs to be defined. I agree that UND needs to be the owners of the trademark and to do that must produce items from time to time to sell to retain that trademark. Shafer needs to find out what the law states about the amount and frequency it must be produced. This should not be about making money. This is about retaining legal rights to a trademark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 38 minutes ago, SWSiouxMN said: This part of the article brings up a question for me When they started this Collection, why wasn't this defined already? Don't you think that would have been the first thing that should have been done when establishing it? 23 minutes ago, obborg said: Same question, conversely: Why must they define it now? Why not simply enjoy the freedom to adapt to changes down the road? Because the law is very vague, I think UND previously felt fine doing occasional releases with no actual policy, not binding themselves to something when they didn't have to. However I believe there were some third parties who started questioning usage which is why I assume they did a much larger/broader release this time (when compared to the first one) and also the reason they are now coming up with a defined policy, making it is easier to defend if needed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxphan27 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 14 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said: How is this any different from marrying, having kids, divorcing, re-marrying, and having more kids? Not to say that some folks don't screw it up royally, but are you suggesting that it is completely impossible to be a loving parent to both sets of kids? I think it depends on which kids like hockey. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 1 hour ago, obborg said: So they have the freedom to set "required" sales at, say one t-shirt (best for branding transition) or to make it unlimited (best for currently needed sales boost.) The New Sioux gear does demonstrate at the very least a lack of commitment to the re-brand, no? Or they do a release now and the shelves are clear of Dacotah Legacy Collection items before the new logo and merchandise is released. If they felt they needed to do another release soon, it makes sense to do it a handful of months before the new brand is released rather than the same time or right after. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, jdub27 said: Because the law is very vague, I think UND previously felt fine doing occasional releases with no actual policy, not binding themselves to something when they didn't have to. However I believe there were some third parties who started questioning usage which is why I assume they did a much larger/broader release this time (when compared to the first one) and also the reason they are now coming up with a defined policy, making it is easier to defend if needed. Very well sniffed out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 16 minutes ago, obborg said: Very well sniffed out. Well other than being fairly obvious, Schafer specifically stated that in the article. "I don't see it as some kind of long process because usage isn't defined," Schafer said. "We can define it any way we want, we just have to make sure we have a reasonable chance at legal defense." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 37 minutes ago, obborg said: Your analogy would apply nicely had you not ignored the part where you were forced out of a happy marriage. But what is the relevance of any of that to the relationship between parent and child? The good parents are the ones that don't bring any of the marital baggage in. UND can still love the Hawks even if the Sioux are over at Christmas, Easter, and every other week during the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, jdub27 said: Well other than being fairly obvious, Schafer specifically stated that in the article. "I don't see it as some kind of long process because usage isn't defined," Schafer said. "We can define it any way we want, we just have to make sure we have a reasonable chance at legal defense." But it's not about legal defense, but defense against a current buzz concerning relinquishing trademarks to the tribes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 33 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said: But what is the relevance of any of that to the relationship between parent and child? The good parents are the ones that don't bring any of the marital baggage in. UND can still love the Hawks even if the Sioux are over at Christmas, Easter, and every other week during the summer. I'll play along. What if you were removed from a happy family against your will, and the reasoning was that those family members were so offensive that they had to be killed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, obborg said: But it's not about legal defense, but defense against a current buzz concerning relinquishing trademarks to the tribes. We'll have to disagree on that. The tribes have zero legal standing and only path to ownership of the marks is if UND voluntarily turned them over. Why would UND have a need for a defense to protect them in that situation? The concern isn't that they would have to turn them over to the tribes if they don't use them, it is that UND would lose ownership and the marketplace would become a free-for-all. UND needs to use the marks fore the sole reason of protecting its ownership of them. 4 minutes ago, obborg said: I'll play along. What if you were removed from a happy family against your will, and the reasoning was that those family members were so offensive that they had to be killed? You keep saying happy family. I'd argue that there wasn't much happiness within UND (and many stakeholders) due to the countless money, time allocated and other resources spent on the situation, detracting from UND's ability to better itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Cratter said: Pretty hot topic here and social media so only natural the herald will have an article. This isn't the first time Sioux stuff has been sold as part of the Legacy Collection. I don't remember hearing much about past sales of this apparel. Why is this such a big deal now? This was something agreed upon long before a new nickname was "selected". As far as the quantity being sold, I cant blame the Sioux Shop for wanting to actually sell a few items. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 4 minutes ago, Blackheart said: Why is this such a big deal now? Click bait for the Herald, newspaper revenues what they are. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said: Click bait for the Herald, newspaper revenues what they are. Gotcha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 15 minutes ago, Blackheart said: This isn't the first time Sioux stuff has been sold as part of the Legacy Collection. I don't remember hearing much about past sales of this apparel. Why is this such a big deal now? This was something agreed upon long before a new nickname was "selected". As far as the quantity being sold, I cant blame the Sioux Shop for wanting to actually sell a few items. I believe it's the first apparel released under the legacy brand. Throw in the timing. And I guess the topic seemed newsworthy enough to have a few pages here recently. And Ed also mentioned some new details about it going forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdub27 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 6 minutes ago, Cratter said: I believe it's the first apparel released under the legacy brand. Throw in the timing. And I guess the topic seemed newsworthy enough to have a few pages here recently. And Ed also mentioned some new details about it going forward. Second release, they did a small one with the original announcement (August, 2013). I believe it was one shirt and had a very limited run. Looks to be a lot of the same confusion though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackheart Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 31 minutes ago, jdub27 said: Second release, they did a small one with the original announcement (August, 2013). I believe it was one shirt and had a very limited run. Looks to be a lot of the same confusion though. Right, I believe the first run was a tshirt with the Sioux geometric logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 hours ago, jdub27 said: Second release, they did a small one with the original announcement (August, 2013). I believe it was one shirt and had a very limited run. Looks to be a lot of the same confusion though. Stand corrected. First apparel in the Dacotah Legacy Collection with the Ben Brien logo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicofelipe Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 5 hours ago, Cratter said: Pretty hot topic here and social media so only natural the herald will have an article. And being the Grand Forks Herald it would come out a week after it happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 14 hours ago, darell1976 said: They had an Indian image on their jerseys (Chief Illiniwek) and to comply with the NCAA's NA policy got rid of all Indian association. Fighting Illini can be associated with someone from Illinois( the state not the tribe ). Was it a shoulder patch or some such? I cant ever remember seeing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 8 hours ago, The Sicatoka said: If "Fighting" is a problem, we'd still have a problem. And some on here said fighting in the name will never happen, and look where we are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darell1976 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 2 hours ago, bison73 said: Was it a shoulder patch or some such? I cant ever remember seeing it. They had the Chief on the chest of the basketball jerseys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bison73 Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 12 minutes ago, darell1976 said: They had the Chief on the chest of the basketball jerseys. Well there you go. I havent seen Illinois play BB in many many years. Thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siouxforcefans Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I didn't see it elsewhere in the thread (easily could have missed it), but the bookstore is letting you order a couple of the legacy items online - 1 men's shirt, 1 women's, and a couple of other items. Now that my order is placed and confirmed, I figured I'd share the news 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.