The "NODAK" Trademark

[iluvdebbies]

4 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

The reaction to Port's reporting on a TM and who owned it was received as if it were by some quarters. Why? If it's all innocent and explainable why is no one at the microphone explaining what happened. 

Port had Berry at the microphone on Wednesday. 

Port didn't show up.

[Oxbow6]

1 minute ago, iluvdebbies said:

Port had Berry at the microphone on Wednesday. 

Port didn't show up.

Wasn't Scholss there?

 

....asking for Port.

[siouxkid12]

2 minutes ago, iluvdebbies said:

Port had Berry at the microphone on Wednesday. 

Port didn't show up.

Anyone who is a reporter at that presser should've asked those questions.  

[jdub27]

2 hours ago, Oxbow6 said:

If this story is "incomplete" as some suggest Schloss could have helped complete it and BB could easily have done that.....but neither did or will. 

Seems like there are a few "in-the-know" around here that could clear everything up as well but are more content with thinly veiled threats and insults.

As for Port's story, there are at least half a dozen people I know who could have wrote the facts out almost verbatim just a month or more ahead of time. I get why some are attacking him, but that's misguided because the mess was out there for over 2 years and could have easily been cleaned up before anyone heard about it. I also get why he's the one who wrote the story. Don't create problems for others to find and this isn't an issue.

[siouxkid12]

2 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Seems like there are a few "in-the-know" around here that could clear everything up as well but are more content with thinly veiled threats and insults.

As for Port's story, there are at least half a dozen people I know who could have wrote the facts out almost verbatim just a month or more ahead of time. I get why some are attacking him, but that's misguided because the mess was out there for over 2 years and could have easily been cleaned up before anyone heard about it. I also get why he's the one who wrote the story. Don't create problems for others to find and this isn't an issue.

Exactly. 

[The Sicatoka]

12 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Seems like there are a few "in-the-know" around here that could clear everything up as well but are more content with thinly veiled threats and insults.

As for Port's story, there are at least half a dozen people I know who could have wrote the facts out almost verbatim just a month or more ahead of time. I get why some are attacking him, but that's misguided because the mess was out there for over 2 years and could have easily been cleaned up before anyone heard about it. I also get why he's the one who wrote the story. Don't create problems for others to find and this isn't an issue.

I'll go one better:
Most of the half-dozen or so who knew were working "backchannels" or "contacts" into UND to give them a heads-up to clean it up so there'd no issue to find. 

[The Sicatoka]

40 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

Anyone who is a reporter at that presser should've asked those questions.  

There were only people who cover sports there. (Yeah, that was a thinly-veiled slam.) 

[The Sicatoka]

47 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

Seems like there are a few "in-the-know" around here that could clear everything up as well but are more content with thinly veiled threats and insults.

Since they won't tell, let's guess! 

My guess:
NODAK LLC acquired NODAK to give to UND as a name for ... the hawk mascot. It was going to be a way to help everyone finally "embrace the bird".  

[nodak651]

If we guess and assume good intentions I'd guess the intent was NIL related with players getting a cut of NODAK merch sales.

 

[The Sicatoka]

5 minutes ago, nodak651 said:

If we guess and assume good intentions I'd guess the intent was NIL related with players getting a cut of NODAK merch sales.

A reasoned and reasonable guess. I like it. But universities are not allowed to have any part of or control over NILs. Wouldn't UND's use of the word carry significant power over the NIL revenue stream? Would that be "control"? It'd be one for the lawyers to hash through. 

[Siouxperfan7]

27 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Since they won't tell, let's guess! 

My guess:
NODAK LLC acquired NODAK to give to UND as a name for ... the hawk mascot. It was going to be a way to help everyone finally "embrace the bird".  

My guess:

They name the mascot "DAK" and then when he makes his appearences at games wearing is jersey with "DAK" on the back, when the fans continue to reject him, it will be a win because they will be chanting "No DAK" and then it works!!

[Big Lubowski]

18 hours ago, Frozen4sioux said:

Hes taking justified criticism because he's a ... who will write anything for clicks whether he has all thw facts or not... even if he does and DID have the facts  he will write anything he can if he can try to stick it to anything college athletics.

Journalist and Port are not compatible words.

Journalists passed on the story because it was and still is.... 

Nothing. 

Every authority you've cried to has now publicly told you this.

bahahahhahahaa... .....

No.

Correct but not for the reasons you think and hope are true.

Are you Heidi Heitkamp's sister? I think we are all very aware now of your disgust for Port--give it a rest. And I think many of us are quite tired of your suggestions that you know the "true story." Me thinks if you did you'd have spilled by now. And the same with your veiled physical threats against anyone who questions what happened here. Cave man "logic" doesn't usually carry the day. 

Just because some hockey program die hards say there is nothing here doesn't mean it's so. 

I agree with everyone on here that thinks there still needs to be an explanation, if not by BB then by his daughter, for her father's sake. If there weren't something rotten here, it wouldn't smell so bad. 

 

[siouxkid12]

10 hours ago, Frozen4sioux said:

When it comes to Port profanity is an upgrade to the type of person he is ... to the core.

You should have investigated more of that before this got farmed to him.

His story was Incomplete yes but worse it was selectively incomplete.

and that's not journalism is sleezeballism... and for the record as a person he is a massive pathetic piece of...

wouldn't want to hurt your ears.

 

 

 

Show me on the doll where Rob Port hurt you?

[90siouxfan]

I think Rob Port stole his girlfriend.....

 

Or maybe  mom...  

 

 

[nodak651]

14 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

A reasoned and reasonable guess. I like it. But universities are not allowed to have any part of or control over NILs. Wouldn't UND's use of the word carry significant power over the NIL revenue stream? Would that be "control"? It'd be one for the lawyers to hash through. 

Hypothetically, my guess could have been the intent, and your response could explain why Nodak LLC never actually used the trademark. 

However, would it be within the rules for a school to have a sponsor on the front of the jersey?  I think it would.  Given that Noadak LLC is a private company without any official affiliation with UND, could they have paid UND for official jersey sponsorship rights in exchange for UND placing Nodak LLC's logo on the front of their jersey?  For example, if a company like Hollister or Abercrombie wanted to pay a school to use their name on the front of a jersey (think pro soccer), would that be allowed by the NCAA?  This would be the exact same thing.  UND could still have the NODAK jerseys, and NODAK merch would all be licensed by NODAK LLC, with sales/licensing revenue being continually be reinvested into marketing expenses, such as sponsorship deals with UND and NIL.  As long as UND wouldn't contractually require or negotiate NIL deals with Nodak LLC, I think that would be completely legit as long as the NCAA doesn't have a rule about corporate logos on jerseys, which they may (I don't recall seeing one anywhere).  Given that UND wouldn't technically be able to negotiate with Nodak LLC in regard to anything NIL related, they would need to make sure they can trust who they're working with, luckly for them, the owner of Nodak LLC is the coaches daughter!  Obviously, this is pretty sketchy, but this hypothetical scenario could be another explanation as to why NODAK was trademarked by the coaches daughter and why Nodak LLC never actually used the trademark (I think?), and it would also explain why nobody at UND wants to talk about it. 

That is legitimately a full on guess and I don't know anything or anyone with any "back channels" like others here seem to.  Just kind of playing devils advocate and arguing to support my guess, assuming good intentions.  I highly doubt my guess is accurate, for a number of different reasons, but I do think my hypothetical scenario could work if the NCAA doesn't restrict sponsorship names on jerseys (which they probably do, but I'm not certain and this was just a guess). 

[The Sicatoka]

9 minutes ago, nodak651 said:

However, would it be within the rules for a school to have a sponsor on the front of the jersey?  I think it would. 

In a word: No. Section 3, Rule 9.6.

[nodak651]

1 hour ago, The Sicatoka said:

In a word: No. Section 3, Rule 9.6.

Quote

9.6 Uniform Logos - In accordance with NCAA Bylaw 12.5.4-(b): An institution’s uniform or any item of apparel (e.g., team jersey) that is worn by a student-athlete while representing the institution in intercollegiate ice hockey may contain only a single manufacturer’s or distributor’s logo or trademark on the outside of the apparel (regardless 24 SECTION 3 / Equipment of the visibility of the logo or trademark). The logo or trademark must be contained within a four-sided geometrical figure (e.g., rectangle, square, parallelogram) that does not exceed 2-¼ square inches. The item of apparel may contain more than one manufacturer’s or distributor’s logo or trademark on the inside of the apparel, provided the logo or trademark is not visible.

Pschh.  So it would be a little small no big deal!  

Also not a big deal if the NCAA doesn't know about it!  I guess, that was until "super evil pathetic sleezball" Rob Port reported on it. (kidding, the hockey team would be much better than they are).    

On second thought, would a company that does nothing but sell licensing rights technically be classified as a distributor or manufacturer?  Looking at the definitions of each, I'm not sure such a company would fit either definition.  Regardless, assuming the NCAA would classify it as such, UND could just pay Nodak LLC an annual Licensing fee for the right to use NODAK as an official UND logo.  If Nodak LLC were to make NIL deals to increase the value of their trademark, so be it.  Completely legit - the business deal between UND and Nodak LLC would be completely justified by UND's greatly improved merch sales.

For the record, this is just about a guess about a guess regarding the original intent of trademarking NODAK, which is probably wrong.  Given that UND never paid Nodak LLC for usage rights, and given that Nodak LLC never actually utilized it's NODAK trademark (that I'm aware of), it's pretty clear that there was zero follow through even if my guess were to match Nodak LLC's intent, and I'm not making a guess or an accusation that this hypothetical NIL scenario actually played out in real life.

 

[Frozen4sioux]

3 hours ago, The Sicatoka said:

I'll go one better:
Most of the half-dozen or so who knew were working "backchannels" or "contacts" into UND to give them a heads-up to clean it up so there'd no issue to find. 

My gawd as I told you BEFORE you pulled all this.

Your little group of people, who thought, who where giddy, who thought had some little kernel of knowledge others didnt... and you were hunna "Get him"

It's like you gave a lecture to Newton on gravity.... and they nodded and smiled and led you to believe you were "involved". 

That's a shame, they should have been upfront, naive, a bit, a lot, gullible on yall, but its what happened, your after action reflection should show this clearly.

I hate to say I told you so but...

I told you so.

 

2 hours ago, Big Lubowski said:

Are you Heidi Heitkamp's sister? I think we are all very aware now of your disgust for Port--give it a rest. And I think many of us are quite tired of your suggestions that you know the "true story." Me thinks if you did you'd have spilled by now. And the same with your veiled physical threats against anyone who questions what happened here. Cave man "logic" doesn't usually carry the day. 

Just because some hockey program die hards say there is nothing here doesn't mean it's so. 

 

 

Well nothing could be further from that disgusting reality.

But ... kinda almost like everything I've said has come...  to fruition.

I get your pissed all this plot didn't work to "get him" ... I hate to say I told you so but....

.........

 

2 hours ago, siouxkid12 said:

Show me on the doll where Rob Port hurt you?

 

Oooof....... wow, talk about out of touch.

What do they say about the company that you keep.?

[The Sicatoka]

Who pulled what?
Some of us stumbled upon some unflattering information and tried to quietly pass it to UND so it would be fixed before it was discovered by "other parties".

Trying to get UND to clean that up is the opposite of trying to "get" someone. It was trying to protect UND and the hockey coach. 

[The Sicatoka]

And you still haven't enlightened us with what you know. 

[Siouxperfan7]

So why are people so bent out of shape when someone see something fishy and demands answers?  Is it because of the person who asked it?  Because of who the questoin is being asked about?  Sorry if there are people offended about hearing the truth.

[Frozen4sioux]

27 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

And you still haven't enlightened us with what you know. 

Sorry bud, that's not my responsibility.

[The Sicatoka]

1 hour ago, Frozen4sioux said:

Sorry bud, that's not my responsibility.

As a pubic entity, UND and its employees do have the responsibility to tell everyone what they knew and when they knew it. 

[Frozen4sioux]

4 hours ago, Big Lubowski said:

Are you Heidi Heitkamp's sister? 

 

 

And the same with your veiled physical threats against anyone who questions what happened here. Cave man "logic" doesn't usually carry the day. 

Two things that have to be "circled back on here.

1. I hold Rob Port in a significantly higher opinion than I do the Hiedi or Joel crime family.

2. "veiled physical threats"....

You can disagree with facts but it's a stretch beyond stretch to say anything in any of these pages can be anything close to construed as "physical" threats.

We disagree on this matter but never in a trillion years is this something anyone.. on this end at least thinks is worthy of throwing down over.

Again you can disagree and be mad about being wrong or the plot not working out ... but don't make things up.

That's just sad.

[jdub27]

48 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

Sorry bud, that's not my responsibility.

Then how is it your duty to get so bent of shape because people aren't getting answers to clarify very fair questions?