obborg Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 They have to maintain the trademark per the settlement. Could you imagine if they lost the trademark on the Fighting Sioux symbolism? You think it's hard to try and get a new nickname now. Very few would be buying anything actually produced by the university. The way you say that makes it sound like they are being forced against their will. Who do you think benefits from this stipulation? Which side do you think pushed it into the settlement? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snova4 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 The way you say that makes it sound like they are being forced against their will. Who do you think benefits from this stipulation? Which side do you think pushed it into the settlement? I'm on the no nickname side, would absolutely love to have Fighting Sioux return, but I don't see it as any grand conspiracy. It would only make sense for the University to want to keep it, and it only makes sense that the NCAA would want the University to keep it. Not sure what point you're trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 The way you say that makes it sound like they are being forced against their will. Who do you think benefits from this stipulation? Which side do you think pushed it into the settlement? Most of the merchandise still in stores with the Fighting Sioux name on it was produced before the nickname was officially dropped. All licensing contracts ended on a specific date, and many stores like the Sioux Shop and Scheels ordered large amounts of merchandise before that date. They still have some of that merchandise and are allowed to sell it as long as they have it. They are not allowed to order more merchandise. As a part of the settlement agreement with the NCAA, UND must maintain the trademark for the nickname or they could assign it to a tribe. They have been maintaining the trademark by selling very limited quantities of specialized shirts, like a couple of dozen per year. They have not lasted in stores for any significant length of time. They make very little money with this arrangement, probably only a couple of hundred dollars per year. I'm pretty sure that both sides had reasons they wanted UND to control the trademark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I'm on the no nickname side, would absolutely love to have Fighting Sioux return, but I don't see it as any grand conspiracy. It would only make sense for the University to want to keep it, and it only makes sense that the NCAA would want the University to keep it. Not sure what point you're trying to make. How? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WiSioux Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 How?because if the University does not own the trademark then anybody can legally make Fighting Sioux merchandise and sell it. Then there would be new Fighting Sioux stuff everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snova4 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 How? Okay. UND wins by not having any Tom, Dick, or Harry slapping the proud logo that Brien created onto anything they want, that includes stupid Bison fans creating shirts and such. It allows UND to control the heritage and the future of that logo and not have it tarnished by someone else, who may do whatever they please with it if the trademark were to lapse. The NCAA benefits by not having the continued circulation of the logo outside of a very, very limited official merchandise that likely barely sees the light of day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 So am I to assume that it is illegal to own a trademark without generating income with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Wonder if say UND were to offer some of the profits to SR & SL anything could happen that could get the NCAA to let them vote again ? If both tribes council requested it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Wonder if say UND were to offer some of the profits to SR & SL anything could happen that could get the NCAA to let them vote again ? I don't know if the small pittance that UND receives from Legacy merchandise each year to maintain the trademark would even pay for the special costs that would have to be incurred to set up such votes. It's not a moneymaking venture so much as it is a means of trademark protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetch Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 Not legacy merchandise but a redo on the name vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I don't know if the small pittance that UND receives from Legacy merchandise each year to maintain the trademark would even pay for the special costs that would have to be incurred to set up such votes. It's not a moneymaking venture so much as it is a means of trademark protection.Oh I see. Highly doubt it. Conservative groups and the state Legislature already get up in arms when UND spends money on things other than education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 I'm on the no nickname side, would absolutely love to have Fighting Sioux return, but I don't see it as any grand conspiracy. It would only make sense for the University to want to keep it, and it only makes sense that the NCAA would want the University to keep it. Not sure what point you're trying to make. My original point was about moving on. What we are arguing about here was a secondary point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snova4 Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 So am I to assume that it is illegal to own a trademark without generating income with it? It's not illegal at all, it just won't remain a trademark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 http://www.inc.com/guides/201101/how-to-protect-your-trademark-from-infringement.html I did the research for you - you have to use it or you lose it. I am quite certain it's not something the leaders at UND feel it is something they "Get To" do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obborg Posted July 26, 2015 Share Posted July 26, 2015 http://www.inc.com/guides/201101/how-to-protect-your-trademark-from-infringement.html I did the research for you - you have to use it or you lose it. I am quite certain it's not something the leaders at UND feel it is something they "Get To" do. But what exactly constitutes "using" it? I didn't see anything at your link about required sales. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 (edited) Look out geaux, you'll have your loyalty questioned if you say things like that. Even if it is 100% true. You sound like a broken record. You say the same thing all of the time. It's a message board, people are supposed to argue here. Edited July 27, 2015 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Oh I see. Highly doubt it. Conservative groups and the state Legislature already get up in arms when UND spends money on things other than education. Did you just quote yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teeder11 Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Did you just quote yourself? Yeah, I am that good! ( : 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMSioux Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 But what exactly constitutes "using" it? I didn't see anything at your link about required sales. I'm not a trademark lawyer - I don't think they have to "sell" stuff they have to be "using" the logo in a public place - I'm guessing The Ralph doesn't count because it's not owned by UND so printing a few high priced shirts once a year is probably the least visible way to protect it. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux>Bison Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 The university needs to stop suppressing the rights of the Sioux people and should return the rights to the logo to the Sioux tribes. Some may use it and some may not but it should be THEIR CHOICE! I don't care if they ever approve the logo for UND to use. Keeping the logo from the Sioux people makes the university racist and Kelley should be ashamed . 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82SiouxGuy Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 The university needs to stop suppressing the rights of the Sioux people and should return the rights to the logo to the Sioux tribes. Some may use it and some may not but it should be THEIR CHOICE! I don't care if they ever approve the logo for UND to use. Keeping the logo from the Sioux people makes the university racist and Kelley should be ashamed . The tribes never had the rights to the logo. It was commissioned by UND. It was created by a member of a different tribe. It is a piece of art owned by the University of North Dakota and they have absolutely no reason to turn it over to anyone else. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 You sound like a broken record. You say the same thing all of the time. It's a message board, people are supposed to argue here. I have no problem arguing points with people. But I think questioning people's loyalty to the institution or the teams based on this or other issues is just crossing a line that should not be crossed. And I for one won't stand for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 The way you say that makes it sound like they are being forced against their will. Who do you think benefits from this stipulation? Which side do you think pushed it into the settlement? I'd guess ... both. Neither wants really wants it in the hands of a third party where neither would be able to control it. The only remotely palatable third party to either side would be a tribe, and honestly, a tribe would probably mess up doing what they have to (periodically use it in commercial trade) to maintain it. A little harsh on the tribes? Meh, probably. But if you pay attention to tribal politics you can see where I'm coming from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 I have no problem arguing points with people. But I think questioning people's loyalty to the institution or the teams based on this or other issues is just crossing a line that should not be crossed. And I for one won't stand for it. Pot meet kettle! Someone link the, we are all dumber now to have read this, clip....? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightingsioux4life Posted July 27, 2015 Share Posted July 27, 2015 Pot meet kettle! Someone link the, we are all dumber now to have read this, clip.... When have I ever questioned your loyalty? The only person I called out for that was that letter to the Heraldo last week who said he was pulling all support for UND. You are loyal, I am loyal and a good 95% of the posters on this forum are loyal (except for the Rodent and FU trolls). But this idea that this whole issue will go away if we just remain "North Dakota" is pure wishful thinking. And the response I get for daring to say that is "When are you changing your username?" I know others have questioned your username and that is just as wrong. All I really want is to resolve this issue and get back to the business of building a solid, across the board, Division I athletic program. Ten years of fighting this war is enough. 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.