The "NODAK" Trademark

[Kab]

I remember the duke fiasco, think it was lacrosse

the BYU fiasco, volleyball

too many jump to conclusions 

 

[The Sicatoka]

5 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

Which “resolved” the “appearance of conflict of interest” which means, nothing.

If appearance is nothing, why is NDUS Policy 308.4 concerned enough about it to specifically mention it. 

Optics do matter. These have been cleaned up. 

[dustnyou]

3 hours ago, siouxkid12 said:

You are 100% correct that this nickname divisiveness does UND no good. Berry and company (hockey program, REA) need to get fully on board with the nickname change. There is no reason that a freshman hockey player tells a reporter that he plays "Fighting Sioux hockey" when they haven't been the fighting sioux for years.

You are literally logged in as “siouxkid12”

[The Sicatoka]

5 minutes ago, Kab said:

too many jump to conclusions 

I'll jump:

Brad knows he's under a constant spotlight.
Someone far less "aware" thought scooping a trademark would be a good idea and in the process unwittingly jammed up dad. 
It ended up costing someone said trademark. Life lesson. 

Too big of a jump? 

[Goon]

2 hours ago, Frozen4sioux said:

He wears Hawks gear all the time.

I've personally been around him many many public occasisons, snd more private and he wears and promotes the name and gear....

Old, lame, red herring.

 

Which btw would actually be a better nickname... and likely logo.

 

@Frozen4sioux has a point, which I can verify. Having gone to many Wednesday press conferences (since UND became the Fighting Hawks) and other events for the media, Berry does wear the UND gear with logos on it. The team was recently sporting some great military appreciation gear, too. 

[Benny Baker]

27 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

As a respected and wise jurist frequently said, bringing a claim for an appearance of conflict of interest is beyond sophomoric.  There is either a conflict or there isn’t a conflict.

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. 

[NoiseInsideMyHead]

12 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

UND has a guy on staff for such things. He's paid doing the TM or not, and the lawyer is always the biggest cost. (Now we'll find the lawyers here. )  

Very true.  Access to in-house lawyers addresses cost, but not necessarily risk.

Doesn't matter if your company's R&D/marketing budget is $10k or $10M, there are always business decisions that need to be made, and I think that respectfully if someone has never had to make a go/no-go decision about how to spend their own hard-earned dollars on their own company, they may not have much credibility on such things.  (Now we'll find the small business owners here.  )

[The Sicatoka]

4 minutes ago, NoiseInsideMyHead said:

... to make a go/no-go decision about how to spend ...

I live on the risk-reward decision curve every day. You're not wrong. 

[Walsh Hall]

11 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

If appearance is nothing, why is NDUS Policy 308.4 concerned enough about it to specifically mention it. 

Optics do matter. These have been cleaned up. 

I completely agree.  Optics matter.  No entity wants the appearance of a conflict of interest for that reason.  They would much prefer there are none.
 

My beef is more that folks jump on an appearance, without facts, which often times is nothing, and some innocent entity/individual suffered the unjust consequences 

[dustnyou]

I hope they wear the NODAK sweaters tonight  

[The Sicatoka]

4 minutes ago, dustnyou said:

I hope they wear the NODAK sweaters tonight  

Only if the coaches are wearing this lapel pin.  

[iramurphy]

I hope they win tonight. I don’t care what color they wear Nor which jersey.  Neither uniforms nor logos have ever one a game. 

[Walsh Hall]

17 minutes ago, Benny Baker said:

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. 

Absolutely, and I assume you would agree that in the legal context, that the specific rules, and volumes of precedent of the conflict rules, control that issue.

i suppose violations of the conflict rules would also fit the impropriety language.  I guess I’ve never heard of an “appearance of impropriety” violation, but it is not something I’ve looked into.

Alright,  enough of this… time to focus our attention on dismantling the Huskies.

 

 

 

 

 

[Green Banner]

1 hour from game time and this matter seems to be closed and really has no substance. Time to lock thus thread 

[siouxkid12]

1 hour ago, dustnyou said:

You are literally logged in as “siouxkid12”

What’s your point? The handle was created over 15 years ago.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

I live on the risk-reward decision curve every day. You're not wrong. 

Don’t we all?

[The Sicatoka]

4 minutes ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

Don’t we all?

Touché. 

[ChadR]

Crazy to see the Berry girls in LA on vacation every weekend. Glad they are using the NODAK proceeds wisely. 

[jdub27]

2 hours ago, Walsh Hall said:

Which “resolved” the “appearance of conflict of interest” which means, nothing.

if there was an actual conflict that would be a potential termination worthy offense.

 

2 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

If appearance is nothing, why is NDUS Policy 308.4 concerned enough about it to specifically mention it. 

Optics do matter. These have been cleaned up. 

ND Asst AG already weighed in. There was no issue. BB is fine in that matter. Not saying it cleans up the optics to the general public but Armacost isn't wrong, it's resolved from that point of view 

[Cratter]

Armacost be like Berry told me no conflict of interest so we good.

[ChadR]

1 minute ago, Cratter said:

Armacost be like Berry told me no conflict of interest so we good.

His interview didn't absolve BB of anything....Def didnt defend him. He'll be gone after this year.

[Cratter]

4 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:

Seems like reasonable questions that should be answered.

What's the most innocent answer Berry could give?

"My daughter loves UND so much so wanted to help them out trademarking it for them. So I got my own attorney and money to gift it to them."

And three people will believe him.

He's better off nevering answering the question. 

[Oxbow6]

Least BB had the boys ready to go tonight

[BusinessSiouxt]

4 hours ago, siouxkid12 said:

What’s your point? The handle was created over 15 years ago.

We’ll need you to change that to ‘hawkkid27’ then. I will change mine to businesshawk if you do! 

[siouxkid12]

10 minutes ago, BusinessSiouxt said:

We’ll need you to change that to ‘hawkkid27’ then. I will change mine to businesshawk if you do! 

I’m not going to lie, I didn’t know it was possible to change it. Also, I’d love to be 27 again