Chief Wahoo in the Crosshairs

[steve B]

The fee wouldn't need to be large depending on the organization. The Indians? Yeah, a BIG fee. A local High school that maybe has a team named after the local tribe? (Plenty of those in the northeast) Maybe $1 a year.

I was in a car club when Chrysler had a bit of a flap over trademarks. Every Chrysler related car club got a cease and desist over any trademarked anything they were using. Which was a major problem for the "Slant Six Club" and "New England Mighty Mopars" It got settled pretty quickly once the people from the "Hemi Owners Group" and a couple others where most of the members have a lot of money threatened to sue. In the end they were just being heavy handed about needing to actively license or protect trademarks so they wouldn't be lost, and pretty much everyone got a license for $1 a year to use any of Chryslers trademarks.

Steve B

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by steve B

The fee wouldn't need to be large depending on the organization. The Indians? Yeah, a BIG fee. A local High school that maybe has a team named after the local tribe? (Plenty of those in the northeast) Maybe $1 a year.

I was in a car club when Chrysler had a bit of a flap over trademarks. Every Chrysler related car club got a cease and desist over any trademarked anything they were using. Which was a major problem for the "Slant Six Club" and "New England Mighty Mopars" It got settled pretty quickly once the people from the "Hemi Owners Group" and a couple others where most of the members have a lot of money threatened to sue. In the end they were just being heavy handed about needing to actively license or protect trademarks so they wouldn't be lost, and pretty much everyone got a license for $1 a year to use any of Chryslers trademarks.

Steve B

I don't have a problem with the fee, but you need to take the tax payer money out of all sports, then. The difference between your two scenarios is the car companies are privately owned companies.

I also am not a fan of fundraisers to bring awareness to something. People are always looking to dip into somebody else's pocket. If you see something wrong, or want to bring awareness, speak up. Use your 1st Amendment Right, not my money.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

I don't have a problem with the fee, but you need to take the tax payer money out of all sports, then. The difference between your two scenarios is the car companies are privately owned companies.

I also am not a fan of fundraisers to bring awareness to something. People are always looking to dip into somebody else's pocket. If you see something wrong, or want to bring awareness, speak up. Use your 1st Amendment Right, not my money.

While I'm not a fan of taxpayer money for the current crazy stadiums, I don't see why you'd have to remove all taxpayer money from all sports.

School bands license music unless they buy sheet music and perform it almost exactly as written.
http://www.halftimemag.com/features/...licensing.html

The same goes for plays if I'm not mistaken.

So what would be different about paying a fee to license a logo.

Not as a way to bring awareness, but as a way for the tribes to make a bit of money.

I'm totally with you on the awareness fundraisers. The first time it really clicked for me was when a bunch of musicians, some pretty big names were doing a concert to save Walden Woods a then privately owned bit of forest near Walden Pond that the owner wanted to develop. I heard the lineup and that they were trying to raise 7 million. And it dawned on me that some of those performers could simply write a check and get it done.

Steve B

[KMayUSA6060]

Somewhat relevant here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.d138d749cf77

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

Somewhat relevant here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.d138d749cf77

Wow, you beat me to it by a few seconds. I was just about to revive this thread and post the same thing. Very relevant and sets precedence for the Redskins by ruling that a ban on offensive names is unconstitutional.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Wow, you beat me to it by a few seconds. I was just about to revive this thread and post the same thing. Very relevant and sets precedence for the Redskins by ruling that a ban on offensive names is unconstitutional.

In my opinion, good for the Supreme Court. No matter your opinion on the matter, there is a lawful/unlawful line that needs to be upheld.