February 21, 2006
They're Going to Get Rid of the Nats, One Way or Another
Last week Ball-Wonk picked up the news that a Cincinnati company called Bygone Sports might win a case with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granting them the rights to the name Washington Nationals. Today, ESPN and The New York Times are reporting that the dispute will go to a judge in April, and a loss in the case there might necessitate a name change for the beleaguered Washington franchise. Ball-Wonk, whose post covers the implications pretty thoroughly, suggests we keep our name and shorten the moniker on the jersey to just "Nats," which most of us call them anyway. I like the Nats idea, but think we should change the long name to the Washington Natropolitan Baseball Club.
One of our diligent writers did some background research on the Bygone trademarks at the USPTO website. Regarding the Nats issue, he says:
If you look at the trademarks, they have to claim what commerce the mark is to be used on. For the Nationals, it only appears to be clothing: t-shirts, caps, jackets, pants, shorts; sweatshirts, sweatpants, jerseys. So those are the only grounds on which they can pursue infringment - clothing. There are other uses which are not claimed (print use of the logo, for example).
The writer also saw that Bygone has trademarked the name "New York Knights," the team on which Robert Redford plays in "The Natural." Regarding this, our researcher notes:
For the New York Knights, they are claiming, "amusement products, games, gaming products and equipment; namely games of chance, games of pseudo-chance, and games of skill; amusement apparatus, gaming machines, and equipment; namely slot machines, video gaming machines, video poker machines, video gaming machines of chance, video gaming machines of pseudo-chance, and video gaming machines of skill." Basically, if they were to get this, and a video game were to come out with "New York Knights" as a fantasy-type team, probably referring back to the movie the Natural, they could sue the maker for use of the term. Like, if EA Sports has a code in one of their baseball games to "unlock" this hidden team and you suddenly have Roy Hobbs in video game form, Bygone Sports would sue for trademark infringement.
To sum up, lawyers will make hundreds of thousands of dollars arguing over who owns the rights to the name of a fictional baseball team used in a video game. These are the parts of the new economy that are the best, I think.
|
And I was going to suggest the team be called "The Naturals" in homage to the movie.
Bha, just call 'em the Greys and get it over with.
Hmm, maybe the Washington Grays idea has a chance again.
I second the Greys. Let's face it, "Nationals" and "Nats" are dull, dull, dull--the obvious result of the "death by committee" brand of creative bankruptcy. This lawsuit is doing DC a favor.
Oops. I guess I "third" the Greys. Someone consult Robert's Rules of Order.
Jason: while I like the Greys, isn't that as dull as you can get?
Michael: By naming the team the Grays, MLB would be honoring the Negro Leagues. The sometimes-Washington-based Negro League team was named the Homestead Garys and they were one of the most successful teams in the league. It has nothing to do with a vibrant name.
As long as they don't start using an alien as a mascot.
The Grays would be a great name but MLB being as big as they are will probably put up a fight. Bygone Sports looks to be nothing more than a couple of chumps who went out and registered the name Nationals the week before knowing that MLB would probably name their new DC team the Nationals. MLB my guess will not roll over, because if MLB does change the name the clowns at Bygone will probably do the same thing with the new name.
Okay, sorry maybe not the week before but I would be interested what other names Bygone has requested to register in the recent history hoping to turn a quick buck.
Nope, Michael, the Greys would honor the sport, bring a lot of attention to Negro Leagues history, and, perhaps on the most simple level, be a symbol of sporting goodwill for a sport that can stand to dispense a solid dose of it. Tourist angles? Merch possibilities? Out the yin-yang. It would be a really exciting development.
Don't even tempt me and my mule into an infringement suit. My life has been hard enough.
Seriously, I think Michael's point was a pun, but also somewhat legitimate; it's like calling somethign the DC Paint-Dryers. Might represent something very cool from the past, but your first impression is still going to be - what? Grays?
I thought about it, though, and there's no shortage of seemingly nonsensical baseball team names out there; having one like the Grays that has some honor and history behind it would not really stand out in that company; in fact it would be, I think, a good thing.
Yo, KCinDC, the Nationals already have an alien as a mascot.
http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/was/community/mascot.jsp
Why oh why can't somebody sue us and take away that awful Screech.
Yes, WOV, it was a pun, and yes, Benjamin, I know about the history of the name. I also think it's way better than the Nationals, if for no other reason than: they are not a national team, they are a DC team, unless the nation wants to help us pay for it, which I am certain they do not.
So yeah, I stand by my original statement: I like the name, but in the context of 'boring,' grey is about as dull as you can get.
Would Grays be any worse than Browns?
Please. Change the name? Never. Let's proceed on two assumptions. First, everyone has his price. "Nationals" is useful to bygone for precisely one reason--sale to MLB. You sell it to MLB, it's worth $10 mil. The next highest bidder will offer precisely nothing. Second, no matter what Bygone is demanding, MLB has put far more investment into "Nationals" than the amount of that demand. Settlement will result.
MLB is trying in vain to act like Bygone doesn't have it over a barrel. That's why they're floating these nonsense rumors. The league has absolutely no bargaining leverage on this, and Bygone should thrash those fools and force MLB to pay precisely $1 less than the cost of a full name change. This would teach the league a lesson--don't make oral contracts with fly-by-night slimeballs angling for a once-in-a-lifetime windfall. You would think that that collection of used-car-lot owners and day traders would have figured that out after cheating everyone in sight. But I guess not.
Honestly, I hope Bygone Sports takes MLB to the cleaners. The Mafia would do well to learn a lesson in extortion … the other end of the gun isn’t so fun to be on.
But I don’t expect them to learn anything, though.
Yeah I would agree that MLB will settle this one. Although, geez, they don't seem to be in the renegotiating mood much recently.
I still have to say that while the Grays (or Greys or however the hell you spell it) is a historic name, it is still kinda blah sounding. And besides, the Grays were really more of a Pittsburgh team.
If I had my druthers I would have just called them the Senators again. Plus I would have used the exact same uniforms. Even if they stick with Nationals, I still think they should do more to play up the Senators' history, like using Senator's trivia questions, or getting Frank Howard to do more stuff like television or radio spots. As it is, they (rightly) play down any Expos history but without any other Washington baseball history they seem more like an expansion team than a rebirth.
I always thought the Federals was a much cooler name.
Much as with the feud between the Moonies and the LaRouchites, the battle between MLB and Bygone Sports is one of those where you have to hope it's possible for both sides to lose.
I like the Washington Lobbyists. It's got some local flair.
Bygone Sports has no real leverage to "take MLB to the cleaners". If they won't settle, the new owner(s) will just say "okay, we'll rename the team. Enjoy your worthless trademark."
If MLB doesn't want to lose a whole season of rebranding and merchandising, which will cost them much more than $1.5 million, they'll settle. But I'd be surprised if Bygone doesn't ask for more than that now.
And even if MLB does change the name, I think Bygone will move a lot of product because it's cheaper than the MLB stuff.
They've hardly done any marketing at all over the last year. Renaming the team will bring in an awful lot of merchandise purchases.
And if MLB changes the name, Bygone will sell approximately zero shirts. Why would you buy a shirt for a team that doesn't exist?
You wouldn't think the Federals was a cooler name if you'd have had the "pleasure" of attending a USFL game. That's right--my family wasn't cool enough to get 'skins tickets.
MLB doesn't care if they change the name. Changing the name just means they get to sell a second set of caps and jerseys to everyone who already bought one last year.
Think the violent imagery was why the Bullets became the Wizards? Think again.
Ah yes- the old bilateral monopoly problem. Bygone Sports only has one buyer, MLB only has one seller. They have each other over barrels, and the first one to blink loses. Even if the trademark is upheld, MLB just renames them, and as others have said, sells a new set of caps and jerseys. Then the trademark is worth nothing. Or, MLB pays $1 less than what the name change is worth to them. Given MLBs recent tactics, I don't anticipate this working out well for Bygone Sports.
How about the Washington Corporate Welfare Kidz?
It always should have been th Grays. The "Nationals"? Talk about bland. The Grays name has history and I find it interesting. Other teams with colors as names: Browns (NFL), Reds (MLB), Blues (NHL).
I'm so tired of many of the newer names in pro sports...Predators, Thrashers, etc.
I think the Charlotte Bobcats have easily the most boring name, logo and colors in the history of sports. But, Nationals is pretty bland. It's about as boring as their uniforms and stadium. They should have just changed their name to "The Washington Beige."
Well, the Bobcats are a little different, because they're named after their owner, BET founder Bob Johnson. It's sort of like the Cleveland Browns, which sounds really bland, but has depth, or something. It's not bland, just goofy.
There will never be a team with a worse name than the Bay Area Cyber Rays.
I vote Swampoodles.
I agree that all the new cat names should be changed, or at the very least we should put a moritorium on new cat names. Even cat logos (i.e. the Thrashers and the Wild). I think labor related names are the best: the Packers, Steelers, Oilers, Mariners, etc. The only good new name recently, in my opinion, is the Houston Texans (with a great logo to boot).
Also, I agree the Nats jerseys are lame. The lettering should match the hat (they should just use the Senators letters). I think the hats are great though, especially the away one. The colors are better than the average new team colors, which nowadays seems to require 8 colors, three of which are teal (although I could do without the Nats' gold). I also think the border on the Nats' collars makes their jerseys look like little league jerseys.
Funny thing about the labor related names: many North Carolinians wanted the Charlotte team to be the Bankers, referring to the three national banks headquartered there. Ultimately lost out, though.
I still think that a better rename for the Bullets would have been the Washington Press. It's got both basketball and regional meaning. Making a mascot would have been tough (although come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen an actual wizard at the game) and the National Press Club (half of which used to be the Washington Press Club) might have objected on trademark grounds.