The journey from there to here
Published on February 4, 2006 By Gideon MacLeish In Current Events

Texas A&M football fans are crying "fowl".

Apparently, they originated the use of the term "12th man" early in their college football tradition. In 1990, they had the term trademarked. Now they are furious that the Seattle Seahawks are using the term "12th man" with their fans and some of the memorabilia they are distributing to the fans of the Superbowl bound birds. They are threatening legal action, and at least one columnist has written a harsh criticism of the team.

There's a teeny, tiny problem here, as far as I'm concerned.

I won't doubnt the Aggie tradition dating back to before the turn of the 20th century. I'll give them that point in the discussion. But they are addressing this argument as if the "12th man" was a new concept in Seattle. It isn't.

See, when this Pacific Northwest city was given its football franchise in 1976, they immediately RETIRED the number 12. No Seattle Seahawk player ever has, or ever will wear the number. It was reserved from the very onset of the franchise for the fans. So, when the Aggies registered their trademark in 1990, it was already in use in Seattle for 14 years. And in the ensuing 15 years since the granting of that trademark, this is the first time they have lodged a complaint.

Interestingly enough, this mirrors a situation in reverse that came to the public's attention after Green Bay's Superbowl XXXI win. The team turned its attention to the numerous businesses (mainly bars) in the region that had appropriated the name "Packers" for their business, and threatened to file suit, despite the fact that these businesses had operated for many years with the names they held. Ultimately, nothing came of it. And nothing SHOULD come of the Aggies' concerns; while I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the 12th man concept having been introduced by a former Aggies player when the Seahwaks were founded, the concept is as tied to the tradition of the Seahawks as it is to the tradition of the Aggies.

Protecting intellectual property is one thing. Protecting it with intellectual DISHONESTY is another (and, as a sidenote...COME ON! 12th MAN! How original IS that that it's worth protecting?!? But of course, these ARE the Aggies we're talking about, so maybe it was the best they could do!)


Comments
on Feb 04, 2006

I dont hate the Seahawks.  I just dont like them a lot!  But I digress.

With the advent of the internet, many companies have tried to grab domain names that are generic in nature, or even representative of the owner, yet could be construed as a rip off of a companies trade name.  I am reminded of MikeRoweSoft.com (I actually know a Mike Rowe, but it is not him). In the end, the big companies try to intimidate the little companies based on legal costs.

That is the Aggies problem.  Seattle has the oomph to fight them, so it will come to nothing.

on Feb 04, 2006
The trademark, copyright, patent situation in the US is a joke and needs a major overhaul. We claim to be a nation that promotes competition and discourages monopoly, and then we allow companies to build fences around the most common and mundane "innovations".

It doesn't really seem to matter if you were the one to invent something, or you were the one to originate a phrase, etc., it is about whether you are the first to register it and if you have the legal purse to back up challenges. This remindes me of that boxing anouncer that had the gall to stake out "Let's get rrrrready to rrrrrumble" for himself.
on Feb 04, 2006

boxing anouncer that had the gall to stake out "Let's get rrrrready to rrrrrumble"

I wonder if the makers of the Sports Jam song paid him.......