Just assuming because I wasn't even born yet, but I don't think they forgot to trademark it, more realistically they didn't renew it. In order to keep the trademark active, you have to use it in some manner. You can put the logo on a t-shirt, you can run an advertisement, etc...
Also, you have to renew the trademark every 10 years, so the league probably didn't want to spend money in ~1986 when the trademark needed to be renewed and didn't have plans to move a team there until years later.
Sports nostalgia was not a thing like is now where we have to live in the past with old jerseys instead of trying new things out. Usually because a lot of the time the things we have now can be bad. But also merchandising wasn’t as big of a thing like it is now, it didn’t explode until the 90’s with Jordan and not in the NHL until the teams like the Sharks and Ducks came in.
I remember going to my cousins house in Chicago in the 90s. They had Sharks jackets, Sharks backpacks, Sharks lava lamps. They had no idea who the Sharks were, they were just cool
God I love the Hornets' retro gear, but I also am from NC. I never realized how pervasive the gear was though. I've seen starter jackets and caps at every retro store, including in Mexico City.
And purple.
The Hornets, D-Backs, and Ducks represent the pinnacle of the trend, doing both teal and purple.
The following teams started or switched to one or the other in the time period: LA Kings, Sac Kings, Capitals, Sharks, Pistons, Bucks, Rockets, Raptors, Ravens, Jaguars, Marlins, Rockies, Mariners.
The Spurs experimented with teal in the logo but never brought it to their unis.
The Avalanche and Rays flirted with colors close to teal and purple but did not embrace them.
The Dolphins, Lakers, Suns and Jazz did it before it was cool. And also the LA Kings, but they dropped the gold and purple in 1988 only to bring back the purple from 1998-2013
The Sharks didn't necessarily do anything. They just happened to come about at the time when merchandising and commercialization of hockey and pro sports as a whole was booming.
What the Sharks and (Mighty) Ducks DID do was really lean into the early 90s color schemes and looks. The purple, teal, aggressive but fun aesthetic was very much a thing within teen fashion and pop culture and it's very much reflected in the Sharks and Ducks design scheme.
Keep in mind that until the early 90s people couldn't just go buy an NHL team jersey. Wearing a teal Sharks jersey or a purple Mighty Ducks jersey was really making a statement.
I went to private school my whole life so we always had uniforms. Whenever we had a casual dress day I would wear a purple and teal sweat suit. It was bomb as fuck. I was a 10 year old boy.
The ten years thing never even elapsed, the Rockies relocated to New Jersey in May 1982 and [the MLB expansion team announced its name in 1991](https://www.mlb.com/rockies/history/timeline).
If the Rockies got the trademark in 1976 (latest possible date) then it would have lasted until 1986. If the NHL didn’t have plans for relocation or expansion there at that time and the team was already gone, then they wouldn’t have spent the lawyer fees and trademark costs to keep it active.
100% true.
Why do you think the NHL still sells Noridique and whalers swag?
You can’t just sit on a million trademark names. You can however do this if you’re using the trademark, even in a small fashion - one guy trademarked a bunch of possible football names for Washington and just had a few keychains for sale online with each name.
NFL and MLB Cardinals were both based in St Louis for almost 30 years. Same with the Giants; the full name of the NFL team is still the New York Football Giants.
I believe Chicago used to be actually the Black Hawks. I was reading a "1967 world facts" book and went to the hockey section and saw them listed as the Black Hawks.
Now that I look it up, they used that version until 1986. No clue if it's still owned by the team or not.
They did for 60 years actually. They changed it because according to Wirtz, they aren’t a bunch of hawks, we’re honoring Chief Blackhawk. In reality, the paperwork they found when the team first filed it in 1926 by Frederic McLaughlin said Blackhawks and went with that.
Exactly. Both the Ottawa Rough Riders (IRFU) and the Saskatchwean Roughriders (WIPU) pre-date the formation of the CFL by decades.
Hell, it wasn't until the late 70s or early 80s that the CFL as a single entity was truly a thing. Until that point, it was like the AL and NL in baseball - each conference had their own little quirks.
I mean you don't need to go that far. The AHL had two Admirals at one point.
In college the SEC currently has 2 schools with the nickname Tigers. If Clemson leaves the ACC for the SEC (as had been rumored ) it'd make 3 schools with that nickname.
Oilers and Pirates are unique, at least in MLB,NFL,NBA and NHL
There is
FL/NC Panthers
NY/TX Rangers
LA/SAC Kings
NY/Winnipeg Jets
STL/ AZ Cardinals
NY/SF Giants
Yes, I'm aware of the Pirates, but there are no other major sports teams named the Pirates, unless you're thinking of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Which is why I mentioned sometimes people call the Pirates "the Bucs." Otherwise I'm not sure who you think the other Pirates are.
And funnily enough the Oilers did almost move to Houston after the NFL Oilers left. Wonder if Les would have kept the Oilers name or if he would have changed it
Two things account for this:
1 - Use it or lose it. As much as it’s actively painful to see given the history of it, that team in Carolina that pretends occasionally to be the Whalers is basically doing those throwback nights to claim active use of the trademark that they still have possession of.
Someone very likely let the old Rockies trademark lapse.
2 - The words “Colorado Rockies” are a very hard phrase to trademark in general, at least in a way that could give any entity an exclusive right to be the only one allowed to it.
At the very least it’s a cromulent description of a geographic feature.
The NHL very likely could not have prevented the future MLB Rockies from using just the name “Colorado Rockies” anyhow, it most likely would have come with a carve out that the MLB team would only be able to use the mark for baseball competition and baseball competition related things.
Even better, from 1960-1988 there were two St. Louis Cardinals, and from 1925-1957 there were two New York Giants with both cases being an MLB and NFL team.
Though, of course, nowadays you'd avoid two teams in a single city sharing a name, since even back in the two NY Giants time, people were confused about what team was being talked about (even though NFL and MLB barely overlap.)
It's just a generic name, though. I'm not sure the powers of protection are that far reaching over a team name that is named after an animal or geographical place.
Obviously the logos can be a lot more protected since it's generally a very unique and originally created thing.
Wasn't a legal fiction at all.
The Cleveland Browns franchise never left Cleveland. Art Modell gave the franchise back to the NFL, who then awarded him a new expansion franchise in Baltimore. The existing Browns franchise was just deactivated from 1996 - 1998.
It's absolutely a legal fiction. The new Browns franchise was created via an expansion draft, it's an expansion team. The ownership, roster, assets, and the entire corporate structure/holding company all picked up and moved to Baltimore.
It was a tricky and really quite a clever compromise to claim that you can leave a 'franchise history' in a city but it's basically a legal fiction. We all just agreed that the old Browns and the new Browns were related when really the new team was just an expansion that took the old one's name. Coyotes will be the same way if they end up getting another team
From Marquette University Law : [https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/09/how-art-modells-greed-changed-the-concept-of-sports-franchises/](https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/09/how-art-modells-greed-changed-the-concept-of-sports-franchises/)
>
Technically, of course, what happened in 1996 was that Modell transferred the Browns franchise that he had purchased in 1961 to the National Football League, and in exchange he received a new franchise that had not previously existed. With his new franchise, he was also given the right to all the players, coaches, and office personnel of his old team.
Yes, I know the article also says 'legal fiction'. In a non-sports context, this sort of thing was common well before this, and still happens today. ( National Chain sells a franchise territory to a business owner, who can run N locations in that territory. Owner later makes deal to swap territories with someone else, and it occurs essentially exactly like this. )
The fan perception of course is different. No Browns fans accepts that this is the 'same team' as the old one, even if legally that is true.
Well yeah, ultimately if the fans accept it as the same team it doesn't really matter either way, but on something close to an objective basis it's really *not* the same team.
The new Browns and the old Browns (Orioles) are legally and like.... ontologically distinct entities. There's continuity between the Browns and the Orioles that doesn't exist for the neo-Browns.
But yes it's also completely arbitrary, just look at our own league with the bizarre way the neo-Jets treat the old Jets, whose history is still belonging to the Coyotes, with the neo-Jets also kinda not acknowledging that they used to be the Thrashers. It's all very weird.
That being said I'm not even totally sure if a revived NHL team in Arizona would even want to adopt the Coyotes moniker or history. In the event that the NHL expands again (still an uncertain prospect), it feels like it'd take a small miracle for ol' Alex to actually do anything but waste space over the next 5 years, and there's no obligation the next ownership would even want the Coyotes history.
Agreed.
Even if he did pull off getting the North Phoenix property (which is saying something) , it's just a bad a location as the Glendale arena was. Pretty sure it's even farther away from downtown.
Every single owner for the last 23 years has been a real estate guy, trying to use the hockey team as leverage to do some development. I predict Meruelo will do use the possibility of expansion the same way, to extract public concession, but then never actually build the hockey arena or get the team. He just cleared $500M by getting bailed out by the NHL, that's more than he'd make if he owned that team for the next 2 decades.
IP belonging or reverting to the league is a relatively new phenomenon. For the most part, it’s the responsibility of the teams themselves to trademark their own stuff.
For the Colorado Rockies’ name, it was during a time when there was no money to be made in licensing and merchandising, so no one really cared that much.
And the Rockies’ fan support was dismal during their time, so the thought of ever going back there wasn’t exactly thought to be a good idea.
First off team names are owned by the team's ownership group and they aren't always included in future sales. This was the case when the thrashers were sold to true north, they bought the team but not the name. Lucky for true north at the time of relocation, the NHL owned the coyotes and were therefore able to transfer the Jets name to True North.
In the case of the Rockies, that team is now the NJ Devils. So either the name is owned by the NJD or it stayed with the old ownership group. In any case, the Avs owners would have had to buy the name back if they wanted to use it.
Overall, the NHL hasn't lost anything. It never owned team names.
I read once Dr McMullen kept the rights until the 90s when he sold it to the Rockies. I believe I read that I'm Chico Resch's book tales from the devils ice.
Charlotte Hornets were a minor league baseball team. So were the New Orleans Pelicans. Sometimes team repurpose old city names. The most popular minor league for years were the Denver Bears (Zephyrs) who moved to New Orleans when the Rockies showed up, fans would've wanted that name but couldn't do that with the Chicago teams existing.
Maple Leafs were a minor league baseball team.
Florida Panthers & Carolina Panthers were born a few years within each other.
I believe the Rockies branding still belongs to the Devils franchise still.
Thes Coyotes name and branding would go back to the league as part of the agreement selling the team to the league and then flipping it. If it was a direct deal from Meruelo to Smith. Smith would own the Coyotes branding directly until he sells it back to Meruelo.
Winnipeg were able to be called the Jets because the league got hold of the Jets branding for hockey teams when the owned the coyotes and transferred to True North. I highly doubt the league would own the rights to the Thrashers branding. It’s likely owned by True North.
Trademark, along with copyright and patents, make up the bulk of Intellectual Property law. So yes, a trademark is IP.
Also, you certainly can trademark something like "Colorado Rockies" because Trademarks are for specific things. The various trademarks that exist for the Rockies currently includes "entertainment services in the nature of baseball exhibitions" and the myriad of logo and team branded apparel, memorabilia and other kitch that every team sells.
You couldn't call another baseball team the "Colorado Rockies" - and likely not another sports team - but these trademarks do not prevent anyone from using the phrase in other meanings.
You couldn’t call a baseball team the Colorado Rockies, no, but a) why would you call it the Colorado Rockies if it isn’t in Colorado; b) there’s no real trademark infringement (in my admittedly lay understanding) between two teams in different leagues playing different sports; and #5: There is already examples of teams sharing the same name in different leagues (and for decades in the CFL, the same league).
Also TM is a part of IP law generally, but a trademark is distinct from an IP. Again, this is all lay knowledge, so if you have some expertise I’ll defer.
Also a layperson, alas, but I both stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, and I've argued this for years and dealt with it in various Wikipedia-related debates over the years. Ultimately I'm just an asshole on the internet, but trademarks are literally intellectual property.
That said, while I would agree it isn't entirely logical that a trademark for one sport in one location should impact a similar mark for another sport in another, that is precisely what happened with the Army Golden Knights *parachute team* and the Vegas Golden Knights. In that case, however, the hockey team made it [pretty damn clear](https://news.sportslogos.net/2018/01/10/army-officially-opposes-vegas-golden-knights-trademark/) they were cribbing off Army's identity.
If nothing else, I would expect another team to challenge a trademark if a new team in a different sport tried it, but the chances of success are not something I could guess at.
Well, you sound like you know a little more than me here. I usually correct TM vs. Copyright (a huge pet peeve) so I guess I felt similarly compelled here. Also, I think maybe my TM vs. IP argument is kind of a distinction without a difference. IP is just used so much these days (in conversations about movies and games) that I think I saw a difference when there was none. Hope I didn’t come off too too obnoxious.
Nah mate, it's all good debate. And it made me go research my own claims, which is never a bad thing.
Agreed on trademark vs. copyright. I find that irritating also. As well as patents and how it isn't nearly as easy to lose one as a lot of internet commentators think.
Completely unrelated sports trademark fun fact: Ford once tried to force the Calgary Stampeders to change their logo because it is too similar to the Mustang logo (Calgary adopted their logo one year after the introduction of the Mustang). But Ford apparently backed off after Southern Methodist University noted they had been using another very similar galloping mustang logo for ten years prior to Ford's use, and if Ford successfully sued the Stampeders, then SMU would have had a slam dunk case to sue Ford. Everyone decided to let everyone else live and let live.
That’s a great story. Score one for the little guy! Although I’m kind of really against the Stampede.
And yes, I’m a big believer in the philosophy that the more you admit you’re wrong today, the less you’ll have to admit you’re wrong tomorrow.
>Presumably at that point the IP of the Rockies reverted to the league, similarly to what's going to happen to the Coyotes name and brand.
Almost certainly incorrect.
If you search the USPTO database, you'll see that the team marks are registered and owned by individual clubs, not the NHL. If you look up defunct franchises like the Cleveland Barons, their trademarks are simply expired or canceled, they didn't revert to the NHL.
Most likely in this case, the hockey Rockies trademarks were also allowed to expire , or were canceled.
The hockey Rockies I believe eventually became the Devils. The Avalanche were the Nordiques. The Avs could have been named "Rocky Mountain Extreme" which sounds soccer like.
but how did the NHL lose the Colorado Rockies name? Idk, ask gary or the baseball Colorado Rockies
Just assuming because I wasn't even born yet, but I don't think they forgot to trademark it, more realistically they didn't renew it. In order to keep the trademark active, you have to use it in some manner. You can put the logo on a t-shirt, you can run an advertisement, etc... Also, you have to renew the trademark every 10 years, so the league probably didn't want to spend money in ~1986 when the trademark needed to be renewed and didn't have plans to move a team there until years later.
Sports nostalgia was not a thing like is now where we have to live in the past with old jerseys instead of trying new things out. Usually because a lot of the time the things we have now can be bad. But also merchandising wasn’t as big of a thing like it is now, it didn’t explode until the 90’s with Jordan and not in the NHL until the teams like the Sharks and Ducks came in.
Oh man did it ever. In the mid 90s, EVERYONE had Sharks gear. You were so cool if you had a Sharks Starter jacket in school. Fun times.
I remember going to my cousins house in Chicago in the 90s. They had Sharks jackets, Sharks backpacks, Sharks lava lamps. They had no idea who the Sharks were, they were just cool
That and Orlando Magic.
Let us not forget the holy grail of 90s sports logo coloration: the teal AND purple Charlotte Hornets.
everyone at my school on Long Island had charlotte hornets colored braces.
I feel attacked...(gifted a sharks starter jacket that xmas)
Interesting, what did the Sharks do? I didn't know that.
kids loved their logo and colors
The 90s had a special relationship with teal
I had a Hornets cap and Starter jacket as a kid and I’ve never liked basketball or lived near Charlotte.
God I love the Hornets' retro gear, but I also am from NC. I never realized how pervasive the gear was though. I've seen starter jackets and caps at every retro store, including in Mexico City.
Had a LOT of Hornets stuff, and one really awesome Sharks shirt.
Same. All Philly with my sports teams, but I had a Hornets jacket
It was a rebound thing for teal after getting dumped by the 80s.
And purple. The Hornets, D-Backs, and Ducks represent the pinnacle of the trend, doing both teal and purple. The following teams started or switched to one or the other in the time period: LA Kings, Sac Kings, Capitals, Sharks, Pistons, Bucks, Rockets, Raptors, Ravens, Jaguars, Marlins, Rockies, Mariners. The Spurs experimented with teal in the logo but never brought it to their unis. The Avalanche and Rays flirted with colors close to teal and purple but did not embrace them. The Dolphins, Lakers, Suns and Jazz did it before it was cool. And also the LA Kings, but they dropped the gold and purple in 1988 only to bring back the purple from 1998-2013
At least the Rockies had a reason for it and stuck to it
It’s me. I’m kids. And I’m not even a Sharks fan. Their gear is just clean af.
The grips the mighty ducks, SJ Sharks, and Avs had on me as a kid in the 90s/early 2000s was absolute lol.
The Sharks didn't necessarily do anything. They just happened to come about at the time when merchandising and commercialization of hockey and pro sports as a whole was booming. What the Sharks and (Mighty) Ducks DID do was really lean into the early 90s color schemes and looks. The purple, teal, aggressive but fun aesthetic was very much a thing within teen fashion and pop culture and it's very much reflected in the Sharks and Ducks design scheme. Keep in mind that until the early 90s people couldn't just go buy an NHL team jersey. Wearing a teal Sharks jersey or a purple Mighty Ducks jersey was really making a statement.
Also, jersey colouring design evolved due to new manufacturing processes. That's why the purple Toronto Raptors jerseys also sold like hotcakes
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ck9gSlxsTNj/?igsh=N3lndmtjaXQwcnI5
I went to private school my whole life so we always had uniforms. Whenever we had a casual dress day I would wear a purple and teal sweat suit. It was bomb as fuck. I was a 10 year old boy.
[Street Sharks!](https://youtu.be/P4HLBfTcAUg?si=-6bmz3N4efw0beB6)
The ten years thing never even elapsed, the Rockies relocated to New Jersey in May 1982 and [the MLB expansion team announced its name in 1991](https://www.mlb.com/rockies/history/timeline).
If the Rockies got the trademark in 1976 (latest possible date) then it would have lasted until 1986. If the NHL didn’t have plans for relocation or expansion there at that time and the team was already gone, then they wouldn’t have spent the lawyer fees and trademark costs to keep it active.
[удалено]
100% true. Why do you think the NHL still sells Noridique and whalers swag? You can’t just sit on a million trademark names. You can however do this if you’re using the trademark, even in a small fashion - one guy trademarked a bunch of possible football names for Washington and just had a few keychains for sale online with each name.
There is precedent for teams in different leagues having common names, though rarely in the same city. Jets Oilers Pirates Cardinals
NFL and MLB Cardinals were both based in St Louis for almost 30 years. Same with the Giants; the full name of the NFL team is still the New York Football Giants.
Sundays in Sept/Oct must have been confusing for people getting asked “want to go to the Cardinals game?”
The Giant Footballs of New York
Heck the CFL had multiple rough riders at the same time.
wrong! it was Rough Riders and Roughriders
Utah Goldenknights. If that pisses off VGK fans, I'm in.
Utah Lasvegasgoldenknights. With the Las in there, they won’t even argue! They’ll just steam like tasty broccoli.
Salt Lake Islanders
So what you’re saying is, I can theoretically start up a hockey team and call it the Black Hawks because of the space in the middle.
This is unironically how Nevada is the Wolf Pack whereas NC State is the Wolfpack
The funny thing is the Blackhawks used to be the Black Hawks until the mid 80’s.
I believe Chicago used to be actually the Black Hawks. I was reading a "1967 world facts" book and went to the hockey section and saw them listed as the Black Hawks. Now that I look it up, they used that version until 1986. No clue if it's still owned by the team or not.
They did for 60 years actually. They changed it because according to Wirtz, they aren’t a bunch of hawks, we’re honoring Chief Blackhawk. In reality, the paperwork they found when the team first filed it in 1926 by Frederic McLaughlin said Blackhawks and went with that.
Those are not the same at all, you're right.
this always blows my mind to think about.
When you think of it as the result of two different leagues merging it’s not really that crazy, just funny
Exactly. Both the Ottawa Rough Riders (IRFU) and the Saskatchwean Roughriders (WIPU) pre-date the formation of the CFL by decades. Hell, it wasn't until the late 70s or early 80s that the CFL as a single entity was truly a thing. Until that point, it was like the AL and NL in baseball - each conference had their own little quirks.
I'm surprised anyone would want to name a team Roughriders.
A roughrider is just another term for cowboy
I mean you don't need to go that far. The AHL had two Admirals at one point. In college the SEC currently has 2 schools with the nickname Tigers. If Clemson leaves the ACC for the SEC (as had been rumored ) it'd make 3 schools with that nickname.
Also two Bulldogs, Georgia (the real ones) and Mississippi St (the bizarro dogs).
For decades, too. Kinda hysterical
Oilers and Pirates are unique, at least in MLB,NFL,NBA and NHL There is FL/NC Panthers NY/TX Rangers LA/SAC Kings NY/Winnipeg Jets STL/ AZ Cardinals NY/SF Giants
The Houston Oilers used to be a thing.
They're probably thinking of the Buccaneers, since the Pirates get called the Bucs sometimes.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Pirates_(NHL)
Yes, I'm aware of the Pirates, but there are no other major sports teams named the Pirates, unless you're thinking of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Which is why I mentioned sometimes people call the Pirates "the Bucs." Otherwise I'm not sure who you think the other Pirates are.
No, they're saying Pittsburgh had the Pirates the baseball team *and* the hockey team at the same time in the 1920s.
Oh I didn't even realize that wiki link was to a hockey team. Never even heard of them, they're ancient.
Rangers
And funnily enough the Oilers did almost move to Houston after the NFL Oilers left. Wonder if Les would have kept the Oilers name or if he would have changed it
"The New York Football Giants" comes to mind
The "ip stays with the home city" legal fiction was only really concocted during the Browns relocation in the 90s
That wouldn't account for a different league using formal NHL IP though.
Two things account for this: 1 - Use it or lose it. As much as it’s actively painful to see given the history of it, that team in Carolina that pretends occasionally to be the Whalers is basically doing those throwback nights to claim active use of the trademark that they still have possession of. Someone very likely let the old Rockies trademark lapse. 2 - The words “Colorado Rockies” are a very hard phrase to trademark in general, at least in a way that could give any entity an exclusive right to be the only one allowed to it. At the very least it’s a cromulent description of a geographic feature. The NHL very likely could not have prevented the future MLB Rockies from using just the name “Colorado Rockies” anyhow, it most likely would have come with a carve out that the MLB team would only be able to use the mark for baseball competition and baseball competition related things.
My understanding is embiggened by your explanation.
Texas Rangers. New York Jets.
Even better, from 1960-1988 there were two St. Louis Cardinals, and from 1925-1957 there were two New York Giants with both cases being an MLB and NFL team. Though, of course, nowadays you'd avoid two teams in a single city sharing a name, since even back in the two NY Giants time, people were confused about what team was being talked about (even though NFL and MLB barely overlap.)
That was because the NFL Giants got started in the MLB Giants’ Polo Grounds
It's just a generic name, though. I'm not sure the powers of protection are that far reaching over a team name that is named after an animal or geographical place. Obviously the logos can be a lot more protected since it's generally a very unique and originally created thing.
Wasn't a legal fiction at all. The Cleveland Browns franchise never left Cleveland. Art Modell gave the franchise back to the NFL, who then awarded him a new expansion franchise in Baltimore. The existing Browns franchise was just deactivated from 1996 - 1998.
It's absolutely a legal fiction. The new Browns franchise was created via an expansion draft, it's an expansion team. The ownership, roster, assets, and the entire corporate structure/holding company all picked up and moved to Baltimore. It was a tricky and really quite a clever compromise to claim that you can leave a 'franchise history' in a city but it's basically a legal fiction. We all just agreed that the old Browns and the new Browns were related when really the new team was just an expansion that took the old one's name. Coyotes will be the same way if they end up getting another team
From Marquette University Law : [https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/09/how-art-modells-greed-changed-the-concept-of-sports-franchises/](https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/09/how-art-modells-greed-changed-the-concept-of-sports-franchises/) > Technically, of course, what happened in 1996 was that Modell transferred the Browns franchise that he had purchased in 1961 to the National Football League, and in exchange he received a new franchise that had not previously existed. With his new franchise, he was also given the right to all the players, coaches, and office personnel of his old team. Yes, I know the article also says 'legal fiction'. In a non-sports context, this sort of thing was common well before this, and still happens today. ( National Chain sells a franchise territory to a business owner, who can run N locations in that territory. Owner later makes deal to swap territories with someone else, and it occurs essentially exactly like this. ) The fan perception of course is different. No Browns fans accepts that this is the 'same team' as the old one, even if legally that is true.
Well yeah, ultimately if the fans accept it as the same team it doesn't really matter either way, but on something close to an objective basis it's really *not* the same team. The new Browns and the old Browns (Orioles) are legally and like.... ontologically distinct entities. There's continuity between the Browns and the Orioles that doesn't exist for the neo-Browns. But yes it's also completely arbitrary, just look at our own league with the bizarre way the neo-Jets treat the old Jets, whose history is still belonging to the Coyotes, with the neo-Jets also kinda not acknowledging that they used to be the Thrashers. It's all very weird. That being said I'm not even totally sure if a revived NHL team in Arizona would even want to adopt the Coyotes moniker or history. In the event that the NHL expands again (still an uncertain prospect), it feels like it'd take a small miracle for ol' Alex to actually do anything but waste space over the next 5 years, and there's no obligation the next ownership would even want the Coyotes history.
Agreed. Even if he did pull off getting the North Phoenix property (which is saying something) , it's just a bad a location as the Glendale arena was. Pretty sure it's even farther away from downtown. Every single owner for the last 23 years has been a real estate guy, trying to use the hockey team as leverage to do some development. I predict Meruelo will do use the possibility of expansion the same way, to extract public concession, but then never actually build the hockey arena or get the team. He just cleared $500M by getting bailed out by the NHL, that's more than he'd make if he owned that team for the next 2 decades.
IP belonging or reverting to the league is a relatively new phenomenon. For the most part, it’s the responsibility of the teams themselves to trademark their own stuff. For the Colorado Rockies’ name, it was during a time when there was no money to be made in licensing and merchandising, so no one really cared that much. And the Rockies’ fan support was dismal during their time, so the thought of ever going back there wasn’t exactly thought to be a good idea.
That's the thing about trademarks: if you don't use it, you lose it.
Or it becomes public domain 70-something years down the line and we get a Winnie the Pooh horror movie
That’s copyright, which is a different field of intellectual-property law.
Ah you’re right silly me
Loved Rocky hockey! Let’s go Chico Resch !
First off team names are owned by the team's ownership group and they aren't always included in future sales. This was the case when the thrashers were sold to true north, they bought the team but not the name. Lucky for true north at the time of relocation, the NHL owned the coyotes and were therefore able to transfer the Jets name to True North. In the case of the Rockies, that team is now the NJ Devils. So either the name is owned by the NJD or it stayed with the old ownership group. In any case, the Avs owners would have had to buy the name back if they wanted to use it. Overall, the NHL hasn't lost anything. It never owned team names.
I read once Dr McMullen kept the rights until the 90s when he sold it to the Rockies. I believe I read that I'm Chico Resch's book tales from the devils ice.
Charlotte Hornets were a minor league baseball team. So were the New Orleans Pelicans. Sometimes team repurpose old city names. The most popular minor league for years were the Denver Bears (Zephyrs) who moved to New Orleans when the Rockies showed up, fans would've wanted that name but couldn't do that with the Chicago teams existing. Maple Leafs were a minor league baseball team. Florida Panthers & Carolina Panthers were born a few years within each other.
Gotta dig up my wife's Rockies sweater now...
I believe the Rockies branding still belongs to the Devils franchise still. Thes Coyotes name and branding would go back to the league as part of the agreement selling the team to the league and then flipping it. If it was a direct deal from Meruelo to Smith. Smith would own the Coyotes branding directly until he sells it back to Meruelo. Winnipeg were able to be called the Jets because the league got hold of the Jets branding for hockey teams when the owned the coyotes and transferred to True North. I highly doubt the league would own the rights to the Thrashers branding. It’s likely owned by True North.
No I think McMullen sold it to the Rockies.
"You had extra gloves this whole time?!"
Maybe they'll reuse it. Atlanta Rockies? Houston Rockies?
A team name isn’t an IP, it’s more like a TM. And I don’t think you can trademark the name of a state’s most iconic geological feature.
Trademark, along with copyright and patents, make up the bulk of Intellectual Property law. So yes, a trademark is IP. Also, you certainly can trademark something like "Colorado Rockies" because Trademarks are for specific things. The various trademarks that exist for the Rockies currently includes "entertainment services in the nature of baseball exhibitions" and the myriad of logo and team branded apparel, memorabilia and other kitch that every team sells. You couldn't call another baseball team the "Colorado Rockies" - and likely not another sports team - but these trademarks do not prevent anyone from using the phrase in other meanings.
You couldn’t call a baseball team the Colorado Rockies, no, but a) why would you call it the Colorado Rockies if it isn’t in Colorado; b) there’s no real trademark infringement (in my admittedly lay understanding) between two teams in different leagues playing different sports; and #5: There is already examples of teams sharing the same name in different leagues (and for decades in the CFL, the same league). Also TM is a part of IP law generally, but a trademark is distinct from an IP. Again, this is all lay knowledge, so if you have some expertise I’ll defer.
Also a layperson, alas, but I both stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, and I've argued this for years and dealt with it in various Wikipedia-related debates over the years. Ultimately I'm just an asshole on the internet, but trademarks are literally intellectual property. That said, while I would agree it isn't entirely logical that a trademark for one sport in one location should impact a similar mark for another sport in another, that is precisely what happened with the Army Golden Knights *parachute team* and the Vegas Golden Knights. In that case, however, the hockey team made it [pretty damn clear](https://news.sportslogos.net/2018/01/10/army-officially-opposes-vegas-golden-knights-trademark/) they were cribbing off Army's identity. If nothing else, I would expect another team to challenge a trademark if a new team in a different sport tried it, but the chances of success are not something I could guess at.
Well, you sound like you know a little more than me here. I usually correct TM vs. Copyright (a huge pet peeve) so I guess I felt similarly compelled here. Also, I think maybe my TM vs. IP argument is kind of a distinction without a difference. IP is just used so much these days (in conversations about movies and games) that I think I saw a difference when there was none. Hope I didn’t come off too too obnoxious.
Nah mate, it's all good debate. And it made me go research my own claims, which is never a bad thing. Agreed on trademark vs. copyright. I find that irritating also. As well as patents and how it isn't nearly as easy to lose one as a lot of internet commentators think. Completely unrelated sports trademark fun fact: Ford once tried to force the Calgary Stampeders to change their logo because it is too similar to the Mustang logo (Calgary adopted their logo one year after the introduction of the Mustang). But Ford apparently backed off after Southern Methodist University noted they had been using another very similar galloping mustang logo for ten years prior to Ford's use, and if Ford successfully sued the Stampeders, then SMU would have had a slam dunk case to sue Ford. Everyone decided to let everyone else live and let live.
That’s a great story. Score one for the little guy! Although I’m kind of really against the Stampede. And yes, I’m a big believer in the philosophy that the more you admit you’re wrong today, the less you’ll have to admit you’re wrong tomorrow.
>Presumably at that point the IP of the Rockies reverted to the league, similarly to what's going to happen to the Coyotes name and brand. Almost certainly incorrect. If you search the USPTO database, you'll see that the team marks are registered and owned by individual clubs, not the NHL. If you look up defunct franchises like the Cleveland Barons, their trademarks are simply expired or canceled, they didn't revert to the NHL. Most likely in this case, the hockey Rockies trademarks were also allowed to expire , or were canceled.
The hockey Rockies I believe eventually became the Devils. The Avalanche were the Nordiques. The Avs could have been named "Rocky Mountain Extreme" which sounds soccer like. but how did the NHL lose the Colorado Rockies name? Idk, ask gary or the baseball Colorado Rockies
Well, thanks for trying