The "NODAK" Trademark

[UNDBIZ]

3 minutes ago, MafiaMan said:

Nice to see you have crawled out of your house after 2.4 years to “flatten the curve.”  Still masking up while you take a tub bath alone at home?

He's been dealt with.  Don't get into COVID or personal attacks.

- Moderators

[MafiaMan]

Just now, UNDBIZ said:

He's been dealt with.  Don't get into COVID or personal attacks.

- Moderators

I’m still salty over his personal cheap shot in a post from April of 2020 regarding my job loss — and I have a long memory.  

[Walsh Hall]

4 minutes ago, siouxkid12 said:

Like I said before, this doesn't happen under Blais or Hak. 

What, specifically, is "this"?  

[siouxkid12]

1 minute ago, Walsh Hall said:

What, specifically, is "this"?  

You know what exactly "this" is. 
 

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

What, specifically, is "this"?  

The ownership of a TM of a word used on a team jersey having to be transferred from the coach's daughter to UND to attempt to resolve appearances of conflict or self dealing. 

[SiouxFan100]

UND does messy

[Walsh Hall]

What is the difference between a message board poster claiming an "appearance of conflict of interest" and an "actual conflict of interest"?   A distinction without a difference it appears.

[siouxkid12]

2 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

What is the difference between a message board poster claiming an "appearance of conflict of interest" and an "actual conflict of interest"?   A distinction without a difference it appears.

One works for the state and the other doesn't... 

[jdub27]

2 hours ago, Frozen4sioux said:

This hit piece came 100% from the hockey hating football faction of HAWKZI leadership in the parking lot of the Alerus.

Name names or quit with the garbage. This has been ongoing for over 2 years. If someone wanted the info out, they had plenty of time. Instead, regardless of intentions, they left a giant mess out in the open that UND now has to deal with. 

If the following are answered, it would clear pretty much everything up:

• Why did Nodak, LLC trademark "NODAK" and what were the intentions with the trademark?
• What is the ownerships of Nodak, LLC? We know who the registered agent is, but that doesn't necessarily equate to ownership.
• Why was it registered 6 months after the creation of the Nodak jerseys and if it was just going to be turned over anyway, why did it take over 2 years?
• And not that it actually matters that much, but who covered the costs for the trademark? I don't think it was a significant amount of money, but it was at least a few hundred dollars between registering the entity and the trademark filing.

[Benny Baker]

Nodak LLC transferred its registration of the federal trademark to UND.  Nodak LLC did NOT transfer ownership of the trademark to UND.  UND's position is that it was always the owner of the trademark, not Nodak LLC.  

[nodak651]

1 minute ago, Benny Baker said:

Nodak LLC transferred its registration of the federal trademark to UND.  Nodak LLC did NOT transfer ownership of the trademark to UND.  UND's position is that it was always the owner of the trademark, not Nodak LLC.  

Can you explain this to me like I'm a Bison fan?  Not sure what the significance of that difference is.

[The Sicatoka]

5 minutes ago, Walsh Hall said:

What is the difference between a message board poster claiming an "appearance of conflict of interest" and an "actual conflict of interest"?   A distinction without a difference it appears.

The problem is the appearance is enough to trigger NDUS Policy 308.4 (below). It's visible to a message board poster and the media. 

Quote

SBHE members, NDUS officials and all NDUS employees shall endeavor to remain free from the influence of, or appearance of, any conflicting interest when acting on behalf of the SBHE, NDUS or any institution. ... 

Actual conflicts of interest include any known interests and activities of the individual as well that of the individual’s spouse, significant other, or immediate family member. ...

An appearance of a conflict of interest includes any situation where the known circumstances could give rise to a perception of impropriety or self-dealing ...

From September 2020 to yesterday, every time Berry approved a new NODAK jersey, the owner of the TM stood to profit. Now, the assertion is the TM owner did not enforce or gave license freely at no gain to the LLC, but do we have documented proof of the assertion between Sep 2020 and Dec 2022. 

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

1 hour ago, Blackheart said:

Counsel from Hermantown on line one for you...

It sure would be nice to have a unique nickname...

[iramurphy]

In addition to sorting out the facts and most importantly, making sure no laws were broken or policies violated, regardless of whose fault this is, UND takes a PR hit and is scrambling to clean up this mess. One would hope the facts will help put this to rest.  Once the media gets involved, facts may get clouded. I’m afraid this issue will continue all season,especially if the hockey team continues to struggle. 

[Benny Baker]

7 minutes ago, nodak651 said:

Can you explain this to me like I'm a Bison fan?  Not sure what the significance of that difference is.

Haha.

I'm not an IP lawyer, so bear with me.  (Btw, any of you around here an IP lawyer--we could use one?).  But my general understanding is that in the United States, the first person to use a trademark is the presumptive owner, not the first person to file.  I say "presumptive" because trademark litigation occurs frequently to determine who owns the trademark; i.e., the first person to use it and where it's being used; the first person to register it and where its being registered (federally or in a state); etc.

So UND's position is that it always owned this trademark anyway because it was the first to use it.  Nodak LLC, Brianna Berry, nor anyone else was ever an owner of this trademark.  Instead, Nodak LLC simply filed a registration for it.  But since Nodak LLC was not the owner of the trademark, it apparently agreed to transfer that registration to its actual owner, UND.

The significance of this from UND's perspective is that since Nodak LLC never owned the trademark, neither it nor the Berry's would have ever been in a position to profit off of it.

[Oxbow6]

7 minutes ago, iramurphy said:

In addition to sorting out the facts and most importantly, making sure no laws were broken or policies violated, regardless of whose fault this is, UND takes a PR hit and is scrambling to clean up this mess. One would hope the facts will help put this to rest.  Once the media gets involved, facts may get clouded. I’m afraid this issue will continue all season,especially if the hockey team continues to struggle. 

....or dons the NODAK jerseys again per the direction of BB.

[Frozen4sioux]

1 minute ago, Benny Baker said:

Haha.

I'm not an IP lawyer, so bear with me.  (Btw, any of you around here an IP lawyer--we could use one?).  But my general understanding is that in the United States, the first person to use a trademark is the presumptive owner, not the first person to file.  I say "presumptive" because trademark litigation occurs frequently to determine who owns the trademark; i.e., the first person to use it and where it's being used; the first person to register it and where its being registered (federally or in a state); etc.

So UND's position is that it always owned this trademark anyway because it was the first to use it.  Nodak LLC, Brianna Berry, nor anyone else was ever an owner of this trademark.  Instead, Nodak LLC simply filed a registration for it.  But since Nodak LLC was not the owner of the trademark, it apparently agreed to transfer that registration to its actual owner, UND.

The significance of this from UND's perspective is that since Nodak LLC never owned the trademark, neither it nor the Berry's would have ever been in a position to profit off of it.

This is also why litigation of these things gets very very messy, very costly and very time consuming...

with little to any actual benefit in "winning" for either parparty...

 

i.e.

 

http://thelegalblitz.com/blog/2012/02/28/the-battle-over-the-fighting-sioux-an-ip-perspective/

[The Sicatoka]

14 minutes ago, Benny Baker said:

I'm not an IP lawyer, so bear with me.  (Btw, any of you around here an IP lawyer--we could use one?). 

Given the interlock history and the agreement to maintain control of the retired moniker, shouldn't UND have expert counsel on staff or retainer? 

[Godsmack]

29 minutes ago, iramurphy said:

In addition to sorting out the facts and most importantly, making sure no laws were broken or policies violated, regardless of whose fault this is, UND takes a PR hit and is scrambling to clean up this mess. One would hope the facts will help put this to rest.  Once the media gets involved, facts may get clouded. I’m afraid this issue will continue all season,especially if the hockey team continues to struggle. 

I’m sure opposing fan bases are delighting over this story right now. I personally know of one UND hater who posted the story to the CC hockey discussion page last night. Regardless of who did what, where, and to whom, you are absolutely right-this is a distraction to the program that they don’t need. Poor optics for UND, BB, and the hockey team. 

[Frozen4sioux]

19 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Given the interlock history and the agreement to maintain control of the retired moniker, shouldn't UND have expert counsel on staff or retainer? 

But would it both shock you... and also not shock you to find out the answer to that.

 

[The Sicatoka]

56 minutes ago, jdub27 said:

If the following are answered, it would clear pretty much everything up:

• Why did Nodak, LLC trademark "NODAK" and what were the intentions with the trademark?
• What is the ownerships of Nodak, LLC? We know who the registered agent is, but that doesn't necessarily equate to ownership.
• Why was it registered 6 months after the creation of the Nodak jerseys and if it was just going to be turned over anyway, why did it take over 2 years?
• And not that it actually matters that much, but who covered the costs for the trademark? I don't think it was a significant amount of money, but it was at least a few hundred dollars between registering the entity and the trademark filing.

Why was NODAK LLC left in such a manner that an easy straight line could be drawn from Brianna Berry to Brad Berry. One more shell or holding company and "presto-gonzo" the trademark disappears in the blizzard of paperwork and no questions ever arise. Did they think no one would notice or care? 

As it was left it's a terrible look. 

[The Sicatoka]

2 minutes ago, Frozen4sioux said:

But would it both shock you... and also not shock you to find out the answer to that.

I'm numb to being shocked anymore. I have come to expect the next < facepalm >. 

[Benny Baker]

33 minutes ago, The Sicatoka said:

Given the interlock history and the agreement to maintain control of the retired moniker, shouldn't UND have expert counsel on staff or retainer? 

Yes, his name is Jason Jenkins.

[siouxkid12]

20 minutes ago, SiouxFan100 said:

I am “comforted” that if Berry gets sacked over this, that there are a lot of posters at SiouxSports that could step in and, based on comments posted here, do a better job. Nice pool of potential replacements.

Just kidding of course 

I'm not going to throw my hat in for the job, watching them skate just gets me tired and out of breath! 

[CMSioux]

2 hours ago, Benny Baker said:

Don’t give the Berry daughters the idea to register Hawks LLC and trademark the word “Hawks” though.

Not possible (assuming you were joking). Somewhat related UND owns the trademark to Fighting Sioux, but they do not own the trademark to Sioux, it is too general of a name.