Whats the point of having "the 12th man" trademarked if your not going to use it?

A&M needs to give it a rest.

 

Seriously, what the hell?

 

None of you have any idea what the 12th man means to Texas A&M. It goes farther than just 'the fans in the stands' as Seattle and other places choose to use it. Until you have been here, or know what it is like to be a part of the tradition you can't just say 'give it a rest'.

 

It's a registered trademark, they have every right in the world to fight this and win this case. You can't just pick and choose which trademarks are worthy of being infringed upon and which aren't.

 

Here's what the hell. I can say "give it a rest" whenever I please. I didn't say it wasn't a registered trademark. They can sue away to their heart's content if it's really hurting all those poor sports fans forced to live in shame after the terrible cruelty of hearing someone else speak a phrase.

 

Sue away. I just don't agree with it. You seem to have some difficulty separating the two.

 

This is the point I have been making all along. I just think there's a problem when you take something linguistic and trademark, irregardless of tradition. The tradition will be there regardless. I mean, I'm not 100% on this, but does Notre Dame have "Play Like a Champion Today" registered and trademarked? I could argue that's on the same level, traditionwise, if not more popularized than 12th man. And yet they don't need to pull this and potentially sue somebody else for using it.

 

However, I think Flying_Mollusk expressed it best out of everyone. I think there are levels of phrases and there are certain levels that should be taken at leisure, as long as it's not used in a defamatory way against the "originators". I mean, when we trademark words, when used in a certain context or even in a certain comformity of one usage of utterance next to another... That seems wrong.

 

It seems like someone has become the "owner" of a series of words, when used publicly. THAT seems crazy and illogical, to me. "These words are mine, because they have meaning for me and this group ONLY, so the rest of you are going to have to PAY me, to use it."

 

Words, especially ones as F_M have stated are more of a leisurely usage, are public domain. It seems like the part of the country that allows people to trademark popular phrases and frivolously sue others is wrong. Number one, it wastes court time. Number two, in the scheme of things it just doesn't seem that important.

 

Can anyone seriously argue the Seakhawks using this has somehow watered down the A&M tradition I had no clue was their tradition to begin with? I mean, I'm almost positive I've heard that phrase in reference to them, but as to that being their thing, I'm not so sure. And I have heard not ONE argument, logical argument, from the Fan or Passion (I'm not calling you out here, just stating an opinion) that has even come close to convinging me. The ball's in your court (or not). Just give me a few good reasons why I'm wrong. I think I've stated clearly what I think.

then TAMU might as well sue every hardcore nfl fan in the country cuz i know everytime im in tampa for a bucs game... everyone talks about bringing the 12th man into the equation..

I agree with Buckeye.

 

Texas A&M has their tradition, fine, but you can't (shouldn't) keep other teams from using the phrase, especially when it is so commonly used.

 

12th man is used in Italy at soccer matches, and I doubt the fans over their know about Texas A&M's tradition.

then TAMU might as well sue every hardcore nfl fan in the country cuz i know everytime im in tampa for a bucs game... everyone talks about bringing the 12th man into the equation..

 

But that's the fans. Does the stadium open acknowledge the use of a '12th man', or do the announcers use that specific term?

This is the point I have been making all along. I just think there's a problem when you take something linguistic and trademark, irregardless of tradition.

The only reason I brought up tradition was the fact that some people, who have no idea what they are talking about with A&M told them to give it a 'rest' and that it was lame to even fight this.

The tradition will be there regardless. I mean, I'm not 100% on this, but does Notre Dame have "Play Like a Champion Today" registered and trademarked? I could argue that's on the same level, traditionwise, if not more popularized than 12th man. And yet they don't need to pull this and potentially sue somebody else for using it.

I would damn well guarantee that if a professional team started to use the phrase and marketed it, Notre Dame would be all over it.

However, I think Flying_Mollusk expressed it best out of everyone. I think there are levels of phrases and there are certain levels that should be taken at leisure, as long as it's not used in a defamatory way against the "originators". I mean, when we trademark words, when used in a certain context or even in a certain comformity of one usage of utterance next to another... That seems wrong.

I dont get this at all. So what you are saying is, words shouldn't be trademarked? Tell that to every major company in the world that has something trademarked. TEXAS A&M CAME UP WITH THE 12TH MAN. It isn't like this was already a term in usage and they just decided to make it their trademark because they wanted it. Get that through your head. Without A&M using that term back in the 20s, it may not even exist today.

It seems like someone has become the "owner" of a series of words, when used publicly. THAT seems crazy and illogical, to me. "These words are mine, because they have meaning for me and this group ONLY, so the rest of you are going to have to PAY me, to use it."

 

Typical Buckeye rambling here. TAMU isn't policing people using the term 12th man. They do have a problem with a company or organization using the trademarked term for financial gain. I find it funny that 62 years after King Gill stepped on the field, the Seahawks can just come and use the term like it's no big deal. I know damn well if A&M used a Microsoft slogan to promote our University, Paul Allen and Microsoft would be on top of it, and for good reason.

Words, especially ones as F_M have stated are more of a leisurely usage, are public domain. It seems like the part of the country that allows people to trademark popular phrases and frivolously sue others is wrong. Number one, it wastes court time. Number two, in the scheme of things it just doesn't seem that important.

It's not just words. It's a REGISTERED TRADE MARK. What will it take for you to except American law? If you register a trademark and don't fight against someone using it, you use your trademark rights. Unless you use your registered trademark, the term is not public domain just because it is spoken word. I would think someone your age would be able to comprehend this concept. Dont act like TAMU just decided to go after the Seahawks because they are in the Super Bowl right now or something. They have sent Seattle cease and desist letters and letters of intent to them for almost 2 years now. They haven't complied and now the University is going to take action.

Can anyone seriously argue the Seakhawks using this has somehow watered down the A&M tradition I had no clue was their tradition to begin with? I mean, I'm almost positive I've heard that phrase in reference to them, but as to that being their thing, I'm not so sure.

So your point is, because you had no idea about a tradition that started in the 20s...that it wasn't Texas A&M's or really their tradition? That is one of the worst and lamest stances in an argument I've ever heard. 'I didn't know about it, so is it really true?' :lol :lol :lol :lol

And I have heard not ONE argument, logical argument, from the Fan or Passion (I'm not calling you out here, just stating an opinion) that has even come close to convinging me. The ball's in your court (or not). Just give me a few good reasons why I'm wrong. I think I've stated clearly what I think.

You aren't calling me out, yet you posted my handle and state that the 'ball is in your court'. I dont know how else to convince you of anything since now you are above accepting American copyright laws. You can't throw out 83 years of tradition and originality just because a pro team feels they should be able to use it. It makes no sense.

 

I agree with Buckeye.

 

Texas A&M has their tradition, fine, but you can't (shouldn't) keep other teams from using the phrase, especially when it is so commonly used.

 

12th man is used in Italy at soccer matches, and I doubt the fans over their know about Texas A&M's tradition.

 

TEXAS A&M IS THE ORGINATOR OF THE 12TH MAN TERM

 

For like the 5th time I've said that. It's in common use because WE CREATED IT.

Passion sums it up pretty well.

 

Bottom line is: It is a trademark right of TAMU and if used for financial gain or national attention by another entity, they have the right to put hault to it.

Thoughts from Seattle:

 

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2006/01/29/seahawks/news09.txt

It was inevitable, I suppose. Given two weeks lead time before the Super Bowl, controversy figured to rear its ugly head sooner or later.

 

But who figured it would be the Texas A&M Aggies, err, excuse me, the Texas A&M Aggies throwing down the gauntlet with our peace-loving Seahawks fans?

 

 

Forget about the Pittsburgh Steelers. We'll deal with Jerome Bettis and his boys next Sunday. Right now, it's time to throw down with A&M over use of the "12th man."

 

Or, as the A&Mers would have you believe, their "12th man ."

 

Football is big in Texas, but apparently not so big that anyone in the Lone Brainstem State bothered opening their myopic eyes and noticing the Seahawks have been calling their fans the "12th man" for the past 21 years.

 

Now, lo and behold, when Paul Allen raised the 12th man flag at Qwest Field last Sunday, somebody down south caught a glimpse and immediately thought, "Dang, that there's a friggin' bill-yon-aire runnin' R favorite sayin' up his pole! That ain't right!"

 

Turns out, the 12th-man phrase isn't a Seattle original. Seriously. And all this time we thought we invented that one. Next thing, somebody's going to tell us we can't be the "sixth man" at Hec Ed or do the "wave" at Safeco Field Actually the "wave" was invented right here at Husky Stadium by old UW yell leader Rob Weller. But being nice Northwesterners, we never bothered applying for trademark rights. Probably just too embarrassed to claim it.

 

But the 12th man, that's a whole different matter. We like our 12th man with the Seahawks. Like it enough that team management retired No. 12 in honor of its fans back in 1984, six years before A&M applied for trademark rights to the phrase.

 

It remains one of just two retired numbers in franchise history, joining Steve Largent's 80, which speaks as much to the team's lousiness as to the fans' loyalty. But c'mon. These are good times now. Our boys are headed to the Super Bowl. Nothing should be harshing our buzz this week.

 

Yet here comes Texas A&M athletic director Bill Byrne, telling the Hawks to "cease and desist" their "brazen" use of A&M's pride and joy phrase.

 

"We had similar situations with the Buffalo Bills and Chicago Bears and they responded quickly with our requests to stop using our Twelfth Man trademark," Byrne said at his weekly press conference. "But Seattle has been slow-rolling us."

 

Slow rolling? You wait 21 years to tell us you've got a problem and we're the poky ones? Tell you what. We'll fly our flag another two decades and get back to you on this.

 

There's really no need for this to get ugly, Aggie folks. Just back down your lawyers, let us keep the 12th man designation and we won't send Allen down to College Station to buy out your little land-grant university and turn it into the southern branch of his Experience Music Project.

 

We have no quarrel with Texas A&M. At least until now. Matter of fact, our Seahawks have employed quite a few of your proud graduates over the years. You know Jacob Green, one of the Seahawks' four honorary captains for Sunday's NFC title game? The fellow whose name is up there on the wall at Qwest Field in the team's Ring of Honor? Ol' Jake is an Aggie through and through. Class of 1980. He stood and watched proudly as the 12th-man flag was raised again in Seattle on Sunday. Didn't hear a peep of protest out of him.

 

Same with Seahawk assistant coaches Zerick Rollins and Gary Reynolds, both A&M grads. Rollins even coached with the Aggies before Mike Holmgren hired him in 2001.

 

Rocky Bernard, the bull-rushing defensive tackle who notched two sacks against the Panthers? Texas A&M product.

 

None of these loyal Aggies felt the need to contact their alma mater about the outlandish trademark infringement going on up in Seattle. Just guessing here, but they probably figured it's pretty cool to share such a neat bond between their favorite college and pro teams.

 

Just so you A&M fans know, I have always admired your tradition, with students standing throughout each game and different football coaches using regular students to fill the "12th man" role on kickoff teams over the years. Though I do find it peculiar that you even refer to your basketball fans as "The 12th Man," which either speaks to the depth of your hoop team or the death of your math program.

 

But you Aggies are a bit aggressive with this whole copyright thing. Your administrators have trademarked Aggies, 12th Man, Twelfth Man, 12th Mania, Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, Wrecking Crew, Texas Aggie Bonfire and Gig'em Aggies.

 

I'm here to say, right now, we'll give you "Gig'em Aggies" and the whole bonfire deal and we'll keep the 12th man.

 

You see, "Dozenth Man" just doesn't ring our bell. Nor does it fit well on a flag or look particularly sharp on a T-shirt.

 

So we'll keep flying our No. 12 banner atop the Space Needle and rallying our 12th-man fans in preparation for the Super Bowl, and we'll be glad to let y'all keep calling yourselves the 12th man, too.

 

If you've got a problem with that, we have a popular phrase we like to use up here in the backwoods of the Pacific Northwest.

 

Take a hike.

The above article is brilliant and articulates well why this is pure poppycock.

 

Passion sums it up pretty well.

 

Bottom line is: It is a trademark right of TAMU and if used for financial gain or national attention by another entity, they have the right to put hault to it.

 

 

See, you can't put together a logical argument without resorting to ad hominem.

 

That being said, you didn't refute one point of mine, except to resort to legal, which I already said was in err. What gives them the right to that string of words? Tradition? Hmmmm, that link isn't strong enough. I mean, certain Packers fans have been standing out in the freezing cold with no shirts on longer than anybody (not to mention it's colder) and yet that doesn't give them the right to trademark it, copyright it and sue other fans.

 

It's just wrong.

Even if TAMU created it, a term can be genericized. If the general public no longer associates that term with TAMU but rather with every stadiums rowdy fans, the mark loses its protection. For example, terms like aspirin and bikini used to have protection but lost the protection because the general public sees them as generic terms. Suffice it to say that being an originator of a term doesnt mean universal protection.

 

Of course this is an issue up to the court. And Passion, you might be right that this is what the courts have ruled. That doesnt mean people cant disagree with how the courts have ruled on the issue. That judge in New England gave the kiddie rapist a couple of months in jail-doesnt make it right. And apparently wanks said the Bills still use it so maybe TAMU didnt win.

 

I asked a bunch of people about this last night and most people didnt even know it was TAMU's phrase except people who were from Texas..

And apparently wanks said the Bills still use it so maybe TAMU didnt win.

 

 

I don't know if they use it in terms of fans but they do give out the "12th man" award.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/12thManAwards.jsp

 

I expect lawyers back up there in the next 21 years at their current clip.

 

And don't look now but UW Huskies use it too!

 

http://gohuskies.collegesports.com/sports/.../112105aac.html

And apparently wanks said the Bills still use it so maybe TAMU didnt win.

 

 

I don't know if they use it in terms of fans but they do give out the "12th man" award.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/12thManAwards.jsp

 

I expect lawyers back up there is the next 21 years at their current clip.

 

I went to that site. :lol

 

I tried to vote for that Bengals game, because MAN the Bills served us that game.

Again, I and TAMU has no problem with using the term 12th man for awards, or to generalize a crowd. They shouldn't.

 

When a company does use it for financial gain. Then yes, it does infringe on copyright laws. I dont know what type of warped society we live in where people so freely think its ok to undermine the entire system of trademarks and copyright laws that have been established.

 

PhishPhan/Gator Guy: Get a life.

And by what means is that article brilliant?

 

He comments that the 'Hawks have used it for 21 years. Thanks bud, we have used it for 84 years thank you. We coined it.

 

There's really no need for this to get ugly, Aggie folks. Just back down your lawyers, let us keep the 12th man designation and we won't send Allen down to College Station to buy out your little land-grant university and turn it into the southern branch of his Experience Music Project.

LOL. What a clown this writer is. A&M is the third largest university in the nation. Should we give him a free pass for freedom of expression or something? Texas A&M has larger endowments then both of the state schools of Washington combined. Laughable.

 

I love how he resorts to painting a picture of Aggie students and alumni as hicks with his mock 'quote' and then turns to the Aggies on the coaching staff and those who play on the field. He is calling for them to go and report Seattle to Texas A&M themselves? What the hell?

 

He also talks about the loyalty the Seahawks have to Steve Largent and no. 80.

 

 

 

:lol :lol :lol :lol

 

Good point Mr. Johns.

Get a life.

 

 

I hope you don't get sued.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pmbvtt.4.17

 

Shame on you using trademarked phrases, yet against it at the same time? Is that you John Kerry?

 

Word Mark 12TH MAN

Goods and Services IC 014. US 028. G & S: jewelry. FIRST USE: 19890000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19890000

 

IC 041. US 107. G & S: entertainment services, namely organizing and conducting intercollegiate sporting events. FIRST USE: 19220000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19220000

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Design Search Code

Serial Number 74560726

Filing Date August 12, 1994

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition October 24, 1995

Registration Number 1948306

Registration Date January 16, 1996

Owner (REGISTRANT) Texas A&M University INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION TEXAS College Station TEXAS 778431230

Attorney of Record MOLLY BUCK RICHARD

Prior Registrations 1612053

Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

 

 

Word Mark 12TH MAN

Goods and Services IC 016. US 037 038. G & S: Bumper stickers, post cards and note cards. FIRST USE: 19840900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840900

 

IC 020. US 050. G & S: Novelty BUTTONS. FIRST USE: 19840900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840900

 

IC 024. US 042. G & S: Towels. FIRST USE: 19841100. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19841100

 

IC 025. US 039. G & S: Hats, t-shirts, polo-type shirts, golf shirts, sweaters, shorts, and athletic uniforms. FIRST USE: 19830900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19830900

 

IC 036. US 102. G & S: College scholarship services. FIRST USE: 19650500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650500

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Design Search Code

Serial Number 74013898

Filing Date December 26, 1989

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition June 12, 1990

Registration Number 1612053

Registration Date September 4, 1990

Owner (REGISTRANT) Texas A & M University Institution of higher education TEXAS College Station TEXAS 77843

Attorney of Record Molly Buck Richard

Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20010221.

Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20010221

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

And apparently wanks said the Bills still use it so maybe TAMU didnt win.

 

 

I don't know if they use it in terms of fans but they do give out the "12th man" award.

 

http://www.buffalobills.com/12thManAwards.jsp

 

I expect lawyers back up there in the next 21 years at their current clip.

 

 

The Bills have it on their "Wall of Fame" next to other Bills greats like Jim Kelly, Jack Kemp, and O.J. Simpson ( :plain ). Like any other "12th Man" phrase, it refers to the fans.

The above article is brilliant and articulates well why this is pure poppycock.

 

 

Passion sums it up pretty well.

 

Bottom line is: It is a trademark right of TAMU and if used for financial gain or national attention by another entity, they have the right to put hault to it.

 

 

See, you can't put together a logical argument without resorting to ad hominem.

 

That being said, you didn't refute one point of mine, except to resort to legal, which I already said was in err. What gives them the right to that string of words? Tradition? Hmmmm, that link isn't strong enough. I mean, certain Packers fans have been standing out in the freezing cold with no shirts on longer than anybody (not to mention it's colder) and yet that doesn't give them the right to trademark it, copyright it and sue other fans.

 

It's just wrong.

 

 

So you saying it is "in err", makes it incorrect? Now I have heard it all. What a joke you are. You ask for logic and post this crap. Laughable.

 

By the way, for your part in asking what makes them have the right to have those words.....go re-read the thread, find the origination and then look up the term "trademark" and respond. Very difficult concept here.

Get a life.

 

 

I hope you don't get sued.

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=pmbvtt.4.17

 

Shame on you using trademarked phrases, yet against it at the same time? Is that you John Kerry?

 

Word Mark 12TH MAN

Goods and Services IC 014. US 028. G & S: jewelry. FIRST USE: 19890000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19890000

 

IC 041. US 107. G & S: entertainment services, namely organizing and conducting intercollegiate sporting events. FIRST USE: 19220000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19220000

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Design Search Code

Serial Number 74560726

Filing Date August 12, 1994

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition October 24, 1995

Registration Number 1948306

Registration Date January 16, 1996

Owner (REGISTRANT) Texas A&M University INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION TEXAS College Station TEXAS 778431230

Attorney of Record MOLLY BUCK RICHARD

Prior Registrations 1612053

Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

 

 

Word Mark 12TH MAN

Goods and Services IC 016. US 037 038. G & S: Bumper stickers, post cards and note cards. FIRST USE: 19840900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840900

 

IC 020. US 050. G & S: Novelty BUTTONS. FIRST USE: 19840900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19840900

 

IC 024. US 042. G & S: Towels. FIRST USE: 19841100. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19841100

 

IC 025. US 039. G & S: Hats, t-shirts, polo-type shirts, golf shirts, sweaters, shorts, and athletic uniforms. FIRST USE: 19830900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19830900

 

IC 036. US 102. G & S: College scholarship services. FIRST USE: 19650500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19650500

Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING

Design Search Code

Serial Number 74013898

Filing Date December 26, 1989

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition June 12, 1990

Registration Number 1612053

Registration Date September 4, 1990

Owner (REGISTRANT) Texas A & M University Institution of higher education TEXAS College Station TEXAS 77843

Attorney of Record Molly Buck Richard

Type of Mark TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20010221.

Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20010221

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

 

 

:banghead

The above article is brilliant and articulates well why this is pure poppycock.

 

 

Passion sums it up pretty well.

 

Bottom line is: It is a trademark right of TAMU and if used for financial gain or national attention by another entity, they have the right to put hault to it.

 

 

See, you can't put together a logical argument without resorting to ad hominem.

 

That being said, you didn't refute one point of mine, except to resort to legal, which I already said was in err. What gives them the right to that string of words? Tradition? Hmmmm, that link isn't strong enough. I mean, certain Packers fans have been standing out in the freezing cold with no shirts on longer than anybody (not to mention it's colder) and yet that doesn't give them the right to trademark it, copyright it and sue other fans.

 

It's just wrong.

 

 

So you saying it is "in err", makes it incorrect? Now I have heard it all. What a joke you are. You ask for logic and post this crap. Laughable.

 

By the way, for your part in asking what makes them have the right to have those words.....go re-read the thread, find the origination and then look up the term "trademark" and respond. Very difficult concept here.

 

*YAWN*

 

Like you posting the same response over and over again and "wasting your time."

 

I said it sucks, not in the legal sense, in the moral sense. But, you probably still think those are the same. My argument has ALWAYS been it's not moral to trademark this kind of stuff. Anyone who does so and uses the courts to enforce this crap is wasting valuable court time. Especially when it's an institution for higher learning.

Your previous post, the one in which I responded to previously, clearly shows that you were trying to debate the legality of the trademark. You can try to deny what you wrote or meant all you want, but it is pretty clear. So instead of trying to say I can not decipher the difference between "legal and moral" sense, maybe you should take the time to improve your reading comprehension and writing skills. Your arguments are so weak it's funny. You never make solid points (still haven't made one) and you still have not presented any facts.

Your previous post, the one in which I responded to previously, clearly shows that you were trying to debate the legality of the trademark. You can try to deny what you wrote or meant all you want, but it is pretty clear. So instead of trying to say I can not decipher the difference between "legal and moral" sense, maybe you should take the time to improve your reading comprehension and writing skills. Your arguments are so weak it's funny. You never make solid points (still haven't made one) and you still have not presented any facts.

 

 

Laws and morality have an exclusive-inclusive relationship. There are things that are immoral and not against the law. That's exclusive. The law, however, we have deemed immoral. Inclusive. I said the law was in err, in that I don't believe it's immoral to use what F-M dubbed a third category trademark.

 

That being said, if the law wants to waste it's time doing this, it's fine. But the people prosecuting crap or pushing it, are wrong, immoral. Not legally, morally.

It's now immoral to protect a trademark?

 

Now I've heard it all.

alright.

 

 

enough is enough.

 

 

*locked*