The "NODAK" Trademark

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

10 pages ??

[Blackheart]

1 minute ago, BarnWinterSportsEngelstad said:

10 pages ??

Where’s the beef?

[BarnWinterSportsEngelstad]

22 minutes ago, Blackheart said:

Where’s the beef?

Port forgot the beef.

[Benny Baker]

Mentioned this to someone the other day, but putting “Nodak” on green, black, and white hockey-centric clothing isn’t really a novel idea here in North Dakota: https://m.facebook.com/100042171531851/

After all, “Nodak Apparel” was a registered ND trade name several years ago. 

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, Benny Baker said:

Mentioned this to someone the other day, but putting “Nodak” on green, black, and white hockey-centric clothing isn’t really a novel idea here in North Dakota: https://m.facebook.com/100042171531851/

After all, “Nodak Apparel” was a registered ND trade name several years ago. 

You have got to be kidding me. 

Looks like that is "Inactive - Involuntary" since 01/06/2022. 
https://firststop.sos.nd.gov/search/business 

[The Sicatoka]

25 minutes ago, Blackheart said:

Come on Sic, don’t you just love a happy ending?  And not the kind you get with Mimosas.

-TM Mafiaman 

You're the knowledge holder on that subject, not I. 

[The Sicatoka]

17 minutes ago, Benny Baker said:

Thanks!  Didn’t see that in the herald article!

Wasn't explicit like in the UND release so you didn't miss it in the Hurled. 

[Benny Baker]

6 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

You have got to be kidding me. 

Looks like that is "Inactive - Involuntary" since 01/06/2022. 
https://firststop.sos.nd.gov/search/business 

Just to be clear, by “several years ago”, I meant the date it was registered in 2018. But correct, it went inactive earlier this year.

[The Sicatoka]

Just now, Benny Baker said:

Just to be clear, by “several years ago”, I meant the date it was registered in 2018. But correct, it went inactive earlier this year.

Missed by that much ... whew ... 

[Benny Baker]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

Missed by that much ... whew ... 

You missed the point, which is that Nodak clothing is not a novel idea in North Dakota and was, in fact, a trademarked name several—meaning 2 or 3 but not many—years ago. 

[Frozen4sioux]

1 hour ago, iluvdebbies said:

For sure he wouldn't till he had the whole story....unlike Portly.

Yes Schloss was well aware I'd imagine

1 hour ago, Oxbow6 said:

No chance he didn't have wind of this a while ago. Isn't he a reporter/journalist? He seemed to be a misinformation spreading expert on everything Covid back in the day and had no problem with that.  Or does his relationship with BB and the hockey program trump his journalistic duties and just make him a lackey in the scenario?

Or... he literally 

22 minutes ago, Big Lubowski said:

You seem to be saying there’s nothing to see here. Couldn’t disagree more. And even if Port didn’t know the full story—and that’s at least partly becuz UND wasn’t very forthcoming—it is news. And it has an odor. At the very least his story should get the rest of the story for those of us that aren’t otherwise in the know. 

Port has gone after SU hard for several issues. I don’t think he was out of bounds on any of them. He’s doing his job—we need transparency from our governmental entities. 

 

Port knew the full story...

 

He knew exactly whatvand why he told only the one side

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

 Port knew the full story...

He knew exactly whatvand why he told only the one side

How would you know that? Rob? Is that really you?  

[Blackheart]

31 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Because they used NODAK on a jersey 70 years ago they are claiming TM rights?

Is there paperwork on that? 

UND’s official response…

 

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, Blackheart said:

UND’s official response…

As Frozen4 pointed out in the jersey thread, UND claimed "first use" on the interlocked ND but "Our Lady of South Bend" was first to TM. "Our Lady" owns it no matter UND's "first use" claims. 

[Big Lubowski]

8 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

Yes Schloss was well aware I'd imagine

Or... he literally 

Port knew the full story...

 

He knew exactly whatvand why he told only the one side

What was the “full story?” Becuz whatever it was 3 hours ago it’s now different after UNDs press release. This assignment does not end the story. We still need to know why BB’s daughter had the rights in the first place. What was her intent? Did she make money on it before this assignment? Something still smells here. 

[Frozen4sioux]

15 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

How would you know that? Rob? Is that really you?  

You can easily know this not in what he wrote.. but in what he didnt write..  and the manner in which he went after the vaugley veiled allegations as opposed to facts.

 

Thats the difference between a journalist and a sleezeball masterclickbaiter ..... who you all put faith into to "get someone"....

and at the end of the day.

What you have is a big ol burger full of ... nothing.

A nothingburger.. .

and now you know, the...... rest of the story.

GoofDAY

[Benny Baker]

8 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

As Frozen4 pointed out in the jersey thread, UND claimed "first use" on the interlocked ND but "Our Lady of South Bend" was first to TM. "Our Lady" owns it no matter UND's "first use" claims. 

First to use > first to file is the presumptive standard in America though, right?  This is why UND’s position is that it always owned the trademark and Nodak LLC never did.

[Big Lubowski]

Port now has a new article after UND’s press release, with many questions that need answering. UND and BB need to clear the air if they want this to go away. 

[The Sicatoka]

1 minute ago, Frozen4sioux said:

You can easily know this not in what he wrote.. but in what he didnt write..  and the manner in which he went after the vaugley veiled allegations as opposed to facts.

We know what he knew because he didn't write you think he knew? 

[The Sicatoka]

3 minutes ago, Benny Baker said:

First to use > first to file is the presumptive standard in America though, right?  This is why UND’s position is that it always owned the trademark and Nodak LLC never did.

But that didn't work with the interlocked ND and Notre Dame's TM on it. 

[Benny Baker]

Just now, The Sicatoka said:

But that didn't work with the interlocked ND and Notre Dame's TM on it. 

Presumptive standard

[The Sicatoka]

4 minutes ago, Big Lubowski said:

Port now has a new article after UND’s press release, with many questions that need answering. UND and BB need to clear the air if they want this to go away. 

Port or "Staff Reports"? 

https://www.inforum.com/news/local/und-spokesman-says-he-is-unaware-of-any-compensation-agreements-with-nodak-llc 

[Big Lubowski]

1 minute ago, The Sicatoka said:

Port or "Staff Reports"? 

https://www.inforum.com/news/local/und-spokesman-says-he-is-unaware-of-any-compensation-agreements-with-nodak-llc 

Port at 8:44. Sorry, don’t know how to link it, but it’s on the Herald site. 

[The Sicatoka]

Quote

The agreement involved no financial transaction between UND and the LLC and “is believed to be in the best interests of all concerned,” the release said.

Did NODAK LLC receive "financial transaction" for licensing from someone other than UND, for example Adidas? 

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, Big Lubowski said:

Port at 8:44. Sorry, don’t know how to link it, but it’s on the Herald site. 

https://www.grandforksherald.com/opinion/columns/port-und-now-owns-nodak-trademark-says-it-didnt-cost-them-anything  

There ya go ya big Lubowski.