For using the '12th Man'?

$5k/year? That's laughable.... Should cost them a few mil and draft picks!

We have a top ranked business school and this is the business deal assembled? Terrible!

The point isn't the money, it's the fact the have to openly admit it belongs to us.

This relationship is mutually beneficial. They get use in the NFL, we get use in NCAA. By them paying us money it validates our trademark, and therefore gives them rights to use it. If we charged more they would probably take our trademark to court, and we could lose. Then both teams would lose exclusive rights.

How about we validate the trademark by them not using it and not paying us ?

Is there some kind of clause that allows us to break the contract of use ?


They shouldn't be allowed to use it at all.

The settlement was simply a way to avoid further litigation. $100K upfront, plus a token $5K a year along with recognition of ownership. Had we continued to litigation, seeking even more money and an injunction against their further usage, we had a good chance at losing. The first reference to A&M and the 12th Man didn't come until November 1921 (yes, E. King Gill incident was January of '22) in the Batt, but the term had been used elsewhere even prior to that. A&M didn't trademark the phrase until 1989. Due to it's international widespread usage, Seattle could've challenged A&M's trademark as genericized, which, if won, would've completely invalidated the mark. W

Sorry to be "that guy" but...

discussed

ad

nauseam

How could they think they have a claim to it when they weren't even a team until the 70's or 80's?

It appears that they out-lawyered us.

quote:

---

How could they think they have a claim to it when they weren't even a team until the 70's or 80's?

It appears that they out-lawyered us.

---

Their claim would be that it doesn't belong to anyone, and obviously we figured they were probably right or else we'd have fought it.

quote:

---

How about we validate the trademark by them not using it and not paying us ?

Is there some kind of clause that allows us to break the contract of use ?


They shouldn't be allowed to use it at all.

---

we may get to that point. By initially having them recognize our ownership with payment and acknowledgement on their site it gives validation to the fact that it is, in fact, our term and our trademark - that is key.

Goodbullhunting had a great article with actual documents awhile back.

IIRC, our university wasn't using it for financial gain. While we have used it for 100 years to describe the student body, we haven't monetized it to the extent Seattle has in recent years.

We have allowed them to use our property for years. It's like the agreement someone has to let their neighbor use a dirt road in the back of their property to move cattle. The neighbor uses it for 50 years, then the land owner dies and the kids want the driver to pay for the use of that road. Too bad. Such rights were never imposed and the previous informal arrangement basically rules.

NFL can afford better lawyers ... and has more leverage

Im glad you asked OP because this subject needs to be talked about on here!

Well, it's Thursday. Time for another one of these threads!

quote:

---

Some of you are truly ignorant.

It is our trademark. Not our term. We did not invent the "12th man", but we popularized it.

---

There seems to be millions of dollars of receipts that say Seattle popularized it more than us.

Seattle says it originated at A&M. The problem is the media is not obligated to, and does not.

TAMU is doing what it needs to do. The recognition and the payment is validation that we own it. By the way this is old news.