Bama threatens Clay Travis ..

[BiscuitEater]

Over 'Aloha, Bitches' tee shirt. LINK

View attachment 9417

Of course, Clay ain't backing down and fires back ..

"Now, we all know that most University of Alabama fans are complete idiots, but even the dumbest Alabama fans alive couldn’t see these shirts and think they were officially licensed by the University of Alabama. Has the University of Alabama ever officially licensed a shirt with the word bitches on it? I mean, come on. These are clear parody shirts, designed with humor in mind, which no reasonable person could remotely confuse with actual products licensed by the school.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

I hope the judge throws all involved in jail.

 

[Shmuley]

There's a reason why Clay Travis has a law degree but doesn't practice law. While the script A utilized on the shirt is slightly different from the University's protected mark, it is deceptively similar. The University wins this one. And they are exceedingly protective of their marks. Exceedingly. Ask Daniel Moore (even though he has had some success fighting them).

 

[Dawgzilla]

Without the Bama bangs on the "A", I think its the Braves that need to be threatening him.

View attachment 9418View attachment 9419

 

[BiscuitEater]

Bama spends 'Millions' of dollars defending it's trademark 'claims.' But, I think they will lose this battle with Travis. Sorry, but the 'A's are not even close to being similar. Like Clay says on his site .. "Bama doesn't own a TM on every script A out there." Look at the Bama TM info about the A. Travis' A isn't even close.

Clemson has a TM on the 'tiger paw' ONLY because it is distinctive and described in TM application .. "The 30-degree angle at which the official Paw sits is there to designate a 1:00 kickoff time for football games, which was a normal occurrence in those days. The indention at the bottom is due to a scar that the tiger who had been chosen as the subject for the logo had received before the cast was made."

Bama spent OVER 8 years and ~$3M against artist Daniel Moore .. and LOST the ruling.

Bama has spent years and millions of $$ insisting that it owns trademark for 'Houndstooth.' Even when the Trademark Board ruled against them, they continue to spend $$ fighting them.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

It's not bangs. It's a mullet.

 

[bulldogcountry1]

I've seen "bama" tattoos that look less similar, but I think that says more about bama fans.

 

[patdog]

And if the slight variation on the script A isn't enough, the image of the trophy and the reference to the Hawaiian QB would be. Clay would last about 5 minutes in court on this one.

 

[SyonaraStanz]

And if the slight variation on the script A isn't enough, the image of the trophy and the reference to the Hawaiian QB would be. Clay would last about 5 minutes in court on this one.

Bama doesn't have trophies or Hawaiian QB's trademarked, though.

 

[mstateglfr]

There's a reason why Clay Travis has a law degree but doesn't practice law. While the script A utilized on the shirt is slightly different from the University's protected mark, it is deceptively similar. The University wins this one. And they are exceedingly protective of their marks. Exceedingly. Ask Daniel Moore (even though he has had some success fighting them).

+1
If the script wasnt meant to imitate/conjure thoughts of the Bama A, then Travis would have just used the original 'Aloha Bitches' tshit and changed it to Crimson in color.
The A on the tshirt is clearly meant to represent the iconic Bama A.

Travis' BS claim that it was just an innocent coincidence that his cursive A looks similar to the Bama A is the sort of **** that makes people not respect him. He obviously cant admit it in a letter to the Bama lawyers though.

 

[MedDawg]

Bama spends 'Millions' of dollars defending it's trademark 'claims.' But, I think they will lose this battle with Travis. Sorry, but the 'A's are not even close to being similar. Like Clay says on his site .. "Bama doesn't own a TM on every script A out there." Look at the Bama TM info about the A. Travis' A isn't even close.

Clemson has a TM on the 'tiger paw' ONLY because it is distinctive and described in TM application .. "The 30-degree angle at which the official Paw sits is there to designate a 1:00 kickoff time for football games, which was a normal occurrence in those days. The indention at the bottom is due to a scar that the tiger who had been chosen as the subject for the logo had received before the cast was made."

1pm is at a 16.7% angle. That should invalidate their stupid trademark right there.

 

[MedDawg]

Without the Bama bangs on the "A", I think its the Braves that need to be threatening him.

View attachment 9418View attachment 9419

This. Lack of Bama bangs AND the 'left-down, right-up' curves of the cross line match the Braves' A.

 

[HumpDawgy]

Most Bama fans believe they own the rights to the letter "A" regardless of the script.

 

[johnson86-1]

1pm is at a 16.7% angle. That should invalidate their stupid trademark right there.

You're going to have to explain that one to me. If 3 is at 90 degrees measured from 12, it seems like 1 and 2 would be at 30 and 60 degrees respectively.

 

[Jgbishop]

Most Bama fans believe they own the rights to the letter "A" regardless of the script.

That’s only because it’s about as far into the alphabet as most of them know.

 

[Msubulldogfan1]

I don’t know enough about trademark suits to have an informative opinion, but it definitely seems like they would have a solid case should they choose to file one.

 

[Wizard.sixpack]

Clay T just needs to shut up because he obviously don't know the rules when it comes to this. If it even resembles an entity it can and most of the time be shut down. (when he talks about the A)Some are more strict on this than others so he might get away with it. I didnt think Bama cared that much about this type of stuff.

 

[HumpDawgy]

Wish the LGBTQ (and whatever else) group would sue us for stealing their banner logo.

 

[Jgbishop]

Clay T just needs to shut up because he obviously don't know the rules when it comes to this. If it even resembles an entity it can and most of the time be shut down. (when he talks about the A)Some are more strict on this than others so he might get away with it. I didnt think Bama cared that much about this type of stuff.

It’s often stopped because of a cease and decist letter but that doesn’t necessarily mean the defendant wouldn’t win. It’s just extremely expensive to litigate patent and trademark cases. Often, it’s more expensive to fight than the total profit you could make from selling the product. You really have to have a lot of money on the line to fight those types of cases to be worthwhile.

 

[JungRebel]

I and I'm sure plenty others mistook it for the alabama A when I first saw it. Isn't that basically the criteria for 'deceptively similar'? But I have seen the pattern so many times that even dramatic deviations from it could probably still fool me at first (unless I was prepared to be looking for the symbol or deviations). I don't know the symbol angle for angle, so several rough approximations could deceive me.

(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procrustes)

I say they should find a judge who has never watched a college football game.

 

[engie]

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Travis end up in Bob Corker's seat in the senate. I'd think anyone attempting to squash him like a bug(ESPN, Alabama) would be mindful of that and adjust their tact accordingly. But maybe that's just me overthinking stuff as usual.

I'm sure this will be very entertaining going forward....

 

[Big Sheep81]

Shouldn't that be decyst?**

 

[RocketDawg]

Most Bama fans believe they own the rights to the letter "A" regardless of the script.

The also own the rights to the national title trophy ....

 

[RocketDawg]

We have something that looks like that?

 

[Go Budaw]

There's a reason why Clay Travis has a law degree but doesn't practice law. While the script A utilized on the shirt is slightly different from the University's protected mark, it is deceptively similar. The University wins this one. And they are exceedingly protective of their marks. Exceedingly. Ask Daniel Moore (even though he has had some success fighting them).

Seems like if Alabama has a valid suit, the Atlanta Braves would as well. The logos are almost identical, yet the actual logo on the shirt doesn’t match either one.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

Nothing about that shirt says Bama to me.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Alabama won't win this. I've been working on trademark, copyright and patent stuff for a few years now. There is so much content out there now the courts have gotten SUPER tight about how they interpret things. The combination of this not being the Alabama "A" and this being easily classified as parody leave Bama without a leg to stand on. Clay's willingness to add a disclaimer and the fact that it is only sold on their website also work in his favor. If it were being sold in Bama clothing stores and stuff it would be more difficult to defend.

Bottom line, the courts are really tired of people like Bama trying to own a word or a letter. Bama can bluster and threaten all they want but they won't win.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Alabama won't win this. I've been working on trademark, copyright and patent stuff for a few years now. There is so much content out there now the courts have gotten SUPER tight about how they interpret things. The combination of this not being the Alabama "A" and this being easily classified as parody leave Bama without a leg to stand on. Clay's willingness to add a disclaimer and the fact that it is only sold on their website also work in his favor. If it were being sold in Bama clothing stores and stuff it would be more difficult to defend.

Bottom line, the courts are really tired of people like Bama trying to own a word or a letter. Bama can bluster and threaten all they want but they won't win.

I see your logic, but if it goes down in an Alabama court that argument will end like this:

 

[dickiedawg]

No, Clemson is Eastern time**

 

[aTotal360]

I'm pretty sure trademark laws don't work qualitatively as in "I thought that was licensed apparel". There has to be something like 7 or 9 degrees of difference from the symbol in question. I think Clay is probably right. Alabama has a huge staff of trademark/copyright lawyers on retainer and they are simply throwing something against the wall to prove they are working.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

With plans to intimidate into submission.

 

[Yellowbob]

I cannot remember the name of the font but I sold fonts for many years prior to computer graphics. The Alabama A,the Ole Miss and the UCLA logos are all based on an old public domain font that is not unique to the schools and they are not very creative in their designs. Nothing wrong with them and they are completely indentified with the respective schools. I don’t know if they can be copywrited but they can certainly be construed to represent each university in court. Like an apple cannot be used to represent a computer brand other than Apple itself.

 

[MSUDawgFan86]

Honestly 17 Bama and their BS threats. I hope Clay sells a ton and posts how much he made off that shirt on Twitter and tags Bama Football in it. The lawsuit BS has gotten out of hand.

 

[EurekaDog]

I see (at least) 4 diffs from Bama's A & 4 diffs from Braves' A (NM)

qweeqweqwe

 

[Shamoan]

Why do the Atlanta Braves care somebody it trying to thake their script "A"?**

 

[Shamoan]

Problem is, this, the bama A, the braves A, and to a lesser degree, Arkansas baseball A are all "deceptively similar" to each other. A twist here, an opposite turn there, mullet vs no mullet....not much of a difference between the lot of them. Let's just root for the Meteorite and be done with it.

 

[Thirty-Two Dive]

If he'd just use this money, and funnel it to Johnny 5*, in 'Bama's name, they'd lay off instantly. DUH

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

Problem is, this, the bama A, the braves A, and to a lesser degree, Arkansas baseball A are all "deceptively similar" to each other. A twist here, an opposite turn there, mullet vs no mullet....not much of a difference between the lot of them. Let's just root for the Meteorite and be done with it.

Wait... what? There is a meteorite heading for Earth on a trajectory to hit Tuscaloosa? Why was I not told about this? And is a meteorite different from a meteor? Is one female?

Dang. I need to watch more TV news!

 

[esplanade91]

It's not "Alabama" per say, it's Collegiate Licensing Company who has exclusivity of any apparel that features the Alabama logo. That's who is telling Clay to stop and who has a valid reason to do so.

And since CLC is owned by IMG, who runs the biggest sports radio network in the United States and could essentially blackball Clay from other things it holds rights to, like the CFP and every single major bowl game, he should just STFU and walk away.

 

[Dawgzilla]

Alabama won't win this. I've been working on trademark, copyright and patent stuff for a few years now. There is so much content out there now the courts have gotten SUPER tight about how they interpret things. The combination of this not being the Alabama "A" and this being easily classified as parody leave Bama without a leg to stand on. Clay's willingness to add a disclaimer and the fact that it is only sold on their website also work in his favor. If it were being sold in Bama clothing stores and stuff it would be more difficult to defend.

Bottom line, the courts are really tired of people like Bama trying to own a word or a letter. Bama can bluster and threaten all they want but they won't win.

I think that is the strongest factor in Traavis' favor. If the shirts are only sold on his website, and a disclaimer accompanies the order page, and the shirt doesn't actually use any of Alabama's trademarks, then there is not much likelihood that consumers will be confused into thinking the shirts are produced, licensed, or approved of by the University. There are probably still some idiots out there who will think it is an officially licensed shirt, but those guys are the outliers. The standard is likelihood of confusion. People who see someone wearing the shirt might be confused, but they are not consumers at that point. If they visit the website to buy a shirt, their confusion should be remedied.

If the shirt were sold in stores its a closer case.

Nevertheless, I can't see the website making enough money off of these shirts to justify much of a legal battle. Travis will drag this out a little for publicity and clicks, sell a few shirts, and then shut it down.