Texas A&M has sued the Indianapolis Colts for unauthorized use to its 12th Man trademarks. (Merge)

[Yehoodi]

Trademark laws for "words" is a bunch of junk in my opinion.

There is a Burger King in Mattoon, Illinois that predates the Burger King everyone knows. It even had a state trademark before them. However since the Burger King everyone knows about had a federal trademark it trumped Mattoon Burger Kings state trademark. Nevertheless the well known Burger King cant have any stores in the Mattoon area( I believe county) and the smaller Burger King cant have a place outside of Mattoon. Point is- the Mattoon Burger was first to patent that trademark and it still didnt work out for them. 

 

I think we need to remember that registration does not in and of itself grant rights to the mark, merely allows you to make it easier to throw around your weight so to speak.

 

In the end analysis it comes down to how one uses the mark, where and when.  Also, courts and laws will invariably trend towards what is right and just. 

 

I am glad that your brought up an example of one using a local mark when a national mark that would be deemed an infringement is handled.  In its most simplest terms trademark infringement comes down to likelihood of confusion in the marketplace and the prevention of one using another's mark to ride their coats tails so to speak, among other things. 

 

In your local/national example we have two entities competing in two difference areas of the country.  And as big Burger King was unlikely trying to confuse folks in Matton as to who the Burger King is and also not trying to steal their business, they were not trying to steal their Matton business.  On the other hand the Matton Burger King was unlikely to expand outside of its one, or a few, restaurants in the county.  As such, in this unique case territorial rights to the mark were struck.   Which when looking back at things is fair.   That is, Matton's Burger King was first and should not have to change its name, meanwhile big Burger King who spent the time and money to go national does not have to change its name cause of some mom and pop restaurant of a similar name in the middle of nowhere if you will.   As a side note, perhaps the Matton Burger King only filed a state mark and not a federal mark, so big Burger King may not have been on notice when they use the name.

 

However the instant case sits on a different footing.  Texas A&M has been using the mark since 1922, which is near the inception of the NFL (I think only two NFL teams predate this time, Chicago Bears and Arizona Cardinals and only by two years btw).  College football was a national event and predates the NFL.  So Texas A&M has been competing on the national stage for well over a century.  Indeed they won the national championship in 1939, 14 years before the inception of the Baltimore Colts and 45 years before they landing in central Indiana in the city of Indianapolis.

 

The college has prided themselves in being the home of the 12th man, and if they were the first to use it on the national scale so be it. 

 

The fact that they are asking a "small" fee of 5K/yr for its usage is not that much in the end of the day for an NFL franchise.  It retains they right to own the mark and allows others to use it for less than what amounts to coffee change.

[buccolts]

Don't get me started on guns, but perhaps your just not having a good day and make eye contact that's not having a good day.  Sometimes that's all it takes.  It is sad to say...

And, in view of tonight's events in Paris, it doesn't even take that.

I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon.

[NewEra]

And, in view of tonight's events in Paris, it doesn't even take that.

I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon.

Amen brother. Sadly it's just getting started here.

[GoColts8818]

Maybe I missed something here, didn't read the whole thread. . . But doesn't every team use the whole "12th man" thing?

 

The seahawks have a freaking flag for it.

the Seahawks had to change it to the 12 because of Texas A&M. Just take it off the stadium and either put up Colts nation or Colts fans and be done with it.

[ColtRider]

I think we need to remember that registration does not in and of itself grant rights to the mark, merely allows you to make it easier to throw around your weight so to speak.

 

In the end analysis it comes down to how one uses the mark, where and when.  Also, courts and laws will invariably trend towards what is right and just. 

 

I am glad that your brought up an example of one using a local mark when a national mark that would be deemed an infringement is handled.  In its most simplest terms trademark infringement comes down to likelihood of confusion in the marketplace and the prevention of one using another's mark to ride their coats tails so to speak, among other things. 

 

In your local/national example we have two entities competing in two difference areas of the country.  And as big Burger King was unlikely trying to confuse folks in Matton as to who the Burger King is and also not trying to steal their business, they were not trying to steal their Matton business.  On the other hand the Matton Burger King was unlikely to expand outside of its one, or a few, restaurants in the county.  As such, in this unique case territorial rights to the mark were struck.   Which when looking back at things is fair.   That is, Matton's Burger King was first and should not have to change its name, meanwhile big Burger King who spent the time and money to go national does not have to change its name cause of some mom and pop restaurant of a similar name in the middle of nowhere if you will.   As a side note, perhaps the Matton Burger King only filed a state mark and not a federal mark, so big Burger King may not have been on notice when they use the name.

 

However the instant case sits on a different footing.  Texas A&M has been using the mark since 1922, which is near the inception of the NFL (I think only two NFL teams predate this time, Chicago Bears and Arizona Cardinals and only by two years btw).  College football was a national event and predates the NFL.  So Texas A&M has been competing on the national stage for well over a century.  Indeed they won the national championship in 1939, 14 years before the inception of the Baltimore Colts and 45 years before they landing in central Indiana in the city of Indianapolis.

 

The college has prided themselves in being the home of the 12th man, and if they were the first to use it on the national scale so be it. 

 

The fact that they are asking a "small" fee of 5K/yr for its usage is not that much in the end of the day for an NFL franchise.  It retains they right to own the mark and allows others to use it for less than what amounts to coffee change.

Thanks for the history lesson, Yehoodi. It doesn't predate anything from 1989-1990. A&M filed for trademark protection 12-89. Granted by U.S. in 9-90. So, it does protect them from then on. I don't care about anything before that. Actually, it was the university of Minnesota that first used the phrase in 1900. Not A&M, until 1922.

Filing for trademark protection for these two words after 1989 means only ONE thing to me. Money. Always has. Always will.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Trademarking a generic expression like 12th Man in the context of fans being the 12th man on a football field, is ludicrous.  It's a term that has been used for as long as I have been watching football, about 48 years.

 

Not good enough.  Long as you have been watching is not before Aggie's 12th man story, which was born in January 1922

 

http://aggietraditions.tamu.edu/team/12thman.html

 

And nobody tried to trademark it until the Aggie's did in late eighties / early 90's....

[JPFolks]

Oh, I didn't know. What an outrageous thing to be able to trademark, but maybe I just think that because I'm not from US?

You'd be sadly disappointed to know that nearly any set of words, phrases or very generic processes and ideas are patented, trademarks, copyrighted etc.   For example, if you click one button to make a direct purchase online, Amazon gets paid as they own that "process."  It's sickening how vampire like lawyers have sunk their teeth into everything in life.  

[RockThatBlue]

Ok, well then I say we fly a 12th man flag outside the Colts complex today at half-staff (in remembrance) because Irsay won't pay this trademark hijacking.

Why wouldn't he pay it?

[chrisfarley]

Why wouldn't he pay it?

if he was going to pay it, there wouldn't be a lawsuit.

[ColtStronger]

And, in view of tonight's events in Paris, it doesn't even take that.

I don't think it's going to get better anytime soon.

It's proven if every citizen owns a gun crime rate goes down, and on the contrary if guns are outlawed, only criminals will have them and the crime rate doesn't go down.  Just because laws are in place doesn't mean people will follow them.  However, if everybody owns a gun and is legal to carry, criminals are aware, and are less likely to try, because they know it's nearly impossible to get away or accomplish a mass murdering spree.... Anyway that isn't football related and I think the majority of somewhat competent people understand this.  It's the ones who are ignorant (or in power) that speak out about it.  Then most and the media runs with it

[bluebombers87]

I think we need to remember that registration does not in and of itself grant rights to the mark, merely allows you to make it easier to throw around your weight so to speak.

In the end analysis it comes down to how one uses the mark, where and when. Also, courts and laws will invariably trend towards what is right and just.

I am glad that your brought up an example of one using a local mark when a national mark that would be deemed an infringement is handled. In its most simplest terms trademark infringement comes down to likelihood of confusion in the marketplace and the prevention of one using another's mark to ride their coats tails so to speak, among other things.

In your local/national example we have two entities competing in two difference areas of the country. And as big Burger King was unlikely trying to confuse folks in Matton as to who the Burger King is and also not trying to steal their business, they were not trying to steal their Matton business. On the other hand the Matton Burger King was unlikely to expand outside of its one, or a few, restaurants in the county. As such, in this unique case territorial rights to the mark were struck. Which when looking back at things is fair. That is, Matton's Burger King was first and should not have to change its name, meanwhile big Burger King who spent the time and money to go national does not have to change its name cause of some mom and pop restaurant of a similar name in the middle of nowhere if you will. As a side note, perhaps the Matton Burger King only filed a state mark and not a federal mark, so big Burger King may not have been on notice when they use the name.

However the instant case sits on a different footing. Texas A&M has been using the mark since 1922, which is near the inception of the NFL (I think only two NFL teams predate this time, Chicago Bears and Arizona Cardinals and only by two years btw). College football was a national event and predates the NFL. So Texas A&M has been competing on the national stage for well over a century. Indeed they won the national championship in 1939, 14 years before the inception of the Baltimore Colts and 45 years before they landing in central Indiana in the city of Indianapolis.

The college has prided themselves in being the home of the 12th man, and if they were the first to use it on the national scale so be it.

The fact that they are asking a "small" fee of 5K/yr for its usage is not that much in the end of the day for an NFL franchise. It retains they right to own the mark and allows others to use it for less than what amounts to coffee change.

The fact that they charge anything at all means they lose the sympathy card. If they cared about protecting their brand they wouldn't let anyone use it.

Also, the university likely took that phrase from someone/somewhere else. You think any of that money goes to the original person's estate? Not likely. So this isn't an issue of nobility or protecting your brand from being watered down. It's all about money.

[Yehoodi]

Thanks for the history lesson, Yehoodi. It doesn't predate anything from 1989-1990. A&M filed for trademark protection 12-89. Granted by U.S. in 9-90. So, it does protect them from then on. I don't care about anything before that. Actually, it was the university of Minnesota that first used the phrase in 1900. Not A&M, until 1922.

Filing for trademark protection for these two words after 1989 means only ONE thing to me. Money. Always has. Always will.

 

Your welcome, there are a few points that I would like to reiterate.  First and most critical, the rights in the mark vest with usage NOT registration, so yes what happened before registration IS important whether you think so or not.  It is the entirety of the argument to be frank.

 

Also, you and other folks should not confuse trademarks with other types of intellectual property, specifically patents and copyrights.  The inventor of a patent is the first to reduce the invention to practice, which could simply be a drawing on a piece of paper demonstrating an effective way to build and operate the apparatus.  If I were to effectively draw a design of an apparatus X and mail it myself (i.e. having the date stamp proof of the date of my drawing) and stuff it in a drawer, then 4 years later an engineer at IBM comes up with the same design and IBM files with the USPTO, and I challenge it I will win, as, even though IBM got to the PTO first and is senior to me, I predate them and win.

 

The same holds true with copyrights, if I come up with a story and registered it no one else can take it.

 

Trademarks and Service marks sit on a different footing in that they are not simply some design or mark, but a mark that is unique to a product/company (trademark) or unique to a service (service mark) that sets it aside from others in the marketplace as belonging to that company, person or entity.   The Levi's tag is a example of a trademark to indicate that the pants are a product of the Levi's company.  And Burger King is an example of a service mark, indicating a company that provides the service of fast food hamburgers.  Bottom line marks are something that are such when one hears or sees them they know it is unique to a given individual.  Sometimes they can be done in an instant like "Can't Wait" but more often are the result of folks taking time to get their mark known to being theirs.   The key is the effort to make the mark unique to themselves and not just the mere act of saying or doing something that is similar to a given mark.

 

This is where the Minnesota issue falls by the wayside.  Not sure if the Gophers or their fans have really ever considered themselves as the 12th man.  Sure there may have been something written about a 12th man in passing in a university article in 1900, but if they do not follow through on the thing there is nothing in their effort to show that their fans are the 12th man or, most critically, make it know that they consider themselves the 12th man.  As such, the single and isolated reference in the article is no different than someone in the late 40s claiming he is the Burger King at a neighborhood barbeque, it does not effect the Burger King trade mark which started in the early 50s.

 

The Texas A&M University has be considering its fans as the 12th man for nearly a century, and I believe that his started from a story of a student (who did not make the team originally) in the stands with friends and was asked to suit up and get ready to play in the game but never did yet he stood by ready and willing to go in if needed.  The team won the game (beating the then defending national champions) and the rest is history.  They have even built a statute in the man's honor.  Even since then the Aggies fans are "ready and willing" to help the team and thus the 12th man in A&M was born.  The student sections all stands during the game to symbolically represent this student player standing and waiting to go in the game.  So bottom line the Aggies have done a lot over the last century to effectuate them as being the 12th man, and that they are ready and willing to help out as a 12th man.  

 

That is about the size of it. A trademark is not something that is earned by the mere inception of words or a drawing, but by the actions of the owner to make the mark unique to him in the marketplace.

 

And again as I mentioned in other posts, it kind of like "the Dog Pound" or "the Black Hole" anybody associated with football knows what we are taking about and to whom the name indicates.

 

As for the money issue, there is no money issue if no one wants to use the mark.  There is nothing wrong with using a different name.       

[Yehoodi]

The fact that they charge anything at all means they lose the sympathy card. If they cared about protecting their brand they wouldn't let anyone use it.

Also, the university likely took that phrase from someone/somewhere else. You think any of that money goes to the original person's estate? Not likely. So this isn't an issue of nobility or protecting your brand from being watered down. It's all about money.

 

I hear what you are saying.  But at the same time folks allow others to use a mark via a licensing agreement without given away the ownership or originality of the mark.  NFL teams license their team marks all of the time.

 

All A&M wants to do is let the nation know that they are the original 12th man, if others want to use it fair enough, but we are still the original 12th man.  And has some have said I believe the Seattle license does not allow a direct usage of the mark but a variation of it as "12", but I could be mistaken

[southwest1]

You are well versed in trademark law Yehoodi. You are also very skilled at describing legal statues or how teams use phrases, signs, or symbols for profit in easy to follow comprehensive terms. I can't match wits with you legally, but I do appreciate that you took the time to shed some light on this 12th Man dilemma & not bill us by the hour for your professional expertise.  Nice work. 

 

I am well versed in watermark protections on artwork or rare historical documents, intellectual property rights with digital files on websites, & basic copyright protocols generally, but the refresher course you provided was indeed a welcome discussion Yehoodi. If I need an attorney in Boston, you'll be my 1st call. 

[bluebombers87]

I hear what you are saying. But at the same time folks allow others to use a mark via a licensing agreement without given away the ownership or originality of the mark. NFL teams license their team marks all of the time.

All A&M wants to do is let the nation know that they are the original 12th man, if others want to use it fair enough, but we are still the original 12th man. And has some have said I believe the Seattle license does not allow a direct usage of the mark but a variation of it as "12", but I could be mistaken

They went nearly 70 years without some legal writ stating their fans were the "official and original" 12th man. If they needed to have it legally recognized by the government after all that time then they've failed.

A&M kid: "Dad, why are we called the 12th man?"

A&M Dad: "Well son because the government and lawyers say we are. Nevermind the fact it's a pretty common designation for football fans and all around sports in general. And be sure to let me know if you see ANYONE trying to use that title cuz we'll call the lawyers and sue them! It's the American way son."

[ColtsBlueFL]

Well to re-post my finding ...

 

Looking at the original registration, how is the Colts use a violation of the expressed use of their TM for 1. Jewellry, 2. Entertainment Services, namely organizing and conducting intercollegiate sporting events ?

 

Was there a subsequent modification of the uses the TM applies to?  If not, the Colts use was not for either uses.

 

Reading through all the documents, it seems to me, as a "layman", the TM relates ONLY to all activities related to intercollegiate sporting events, and all subsequent merchandising for said intercollegiate sporting events.  Ergo, the TM ought not extend to the Colts' use of the generic sporting term "12th man" as used in "Professional" sports.

 

The TM registration was very specific in saying intercollegiate sporting events.  It did NOT say ALL sporting events.  Ergo, I would argue that unless there was a subsequent modification of the breadth of the TM, it simply does not apply to professional sports.  If I were a deep pocketed NFL owner, I would consult an expert TM Law Firm and fight this apparent over reaching of the TM beyond what it's stated application is.

 

Did you also check out these four additional trademark registrations granted to A&M?  (I haven't) The first 3 granted incontestable status.

 

Four additional Trademark claims related to the "12th Man" term were also filed and granted at later dates by Texas A&M University (See U.S. Ser. Nos. 74560726, 76671314, 85977835 and 85851199), the first three of which have achieved Incontestable Status as a result of its section 15 affidavit with the Patent and Trademark Office"

 

"After five years of consecutive use from the date of federal registration, a trademark may be declared incontestable. An incontestable mark is immune from challenge except if it has become the generic term for the goods or abandoned for nonuse"

[ColtRider]

Your welcome, there are a few points that I would like to reiterate. First and most critical, the rights in the mark vest with usage NOT registration, so yes what happened before registration IS important whether you think so or not. It is the entirety of the argument to be frank.

Also, you and other folks should not confuse trademarks with other types of intellectual property, specifically patents and copyrights. The inventor of a patent is the first to reduce the invention to practice, which could simply be a drawing on a piece of paper demonstrating an effective way to build and operate the apparatus. If I were to effectively draw a design of an apparatus X and mail it myself (i.e. having the date stamp proof of the date of my drawing) and stuff it in a drawer, then 4 years later an engineer at IBM comes up with the same design and IBM files with the USPTO, and I challenge it I will win, as, even though IBM got to the PTO first and is senior to me, I predate them and win.

The same holds true with copyrights, if I come up with a story and registered it no one else can take it.

Trademarks and Service marks sit on a different footing in that they are not simply some design or mark, but a mark that is unique to a product/company (trademark) or unique to a service (service mark) that sets it aside from others in the marketplace as belonging to that company, person or entity. The Levi's tag is a example of a trademark to indicate that the pants are a product of the Levi's company. And Burger King is an example of a service mark, indicating a company that provides the service of fast food hamburgers. Bottom line marks are something that are such when one hears or sees them they know it is unique to a given individual. Sometimes they can be done in an instant like "Can't Wait" but more often are the result of folks taking time to get their mark known to being theirs. The key is the effort to make the mark unique to themselves and not just the mere act of saying or doing something that is similar to a given mark.

This is where the Minnesota issue falls by the wayside. Not sure if the Gophers or their fans have really ever considered themselves as the 12th man. Sure there may have been something written about a 12th man in passing in a university article in 1900, but if they do not follow through on the thing there is nothing in their effort to show that their fans are the 12th man or, most critically, make it know that they consider themselves the 12th man. As such, the single and isolated reference in the article is no different than someone in the late 40s claiming he is the Burger King at a neighborhood barbeque, it does not effect the Burger King trade mark which started in the early 50s.

The Texas A&M University has be considering its fans as the 12th man for nearly a century, and I believe that his started from a story of a student (who did not make the team originally) in the stands with friends and was asked to suit up and get ready to play in the game but never did yet he stood by ready and willing to go in if needed. The team won the game (beating the then defending national champions) and the rest is history. They have even built a statute in the man's honor. Even since then the Aggies fans are "ready and willing" to help the team and thus the 12th man in A&M was born. The student sections all stands during the game to symbolically represent this student player standing and waiting to go in the game. So bottom line the Aggies have done a lot over the last century to effectuate them as being the 12th man, and that they are ready and willing to help out as a 12th man.

That is about the size of it. A trademark is not something that is earned by the mere inception of words or a drawing, but by the actions of the owner to make the mark unique to him in the marketplace.

And again as I mentioned in other posts, it kind of like "the Dog Pound" or "the Black Hole" anybody associated with football knows what we are taking about and to whom the name indicates.

As for the money issue, there is no money issue if no one wants to use the mark. There is nothing wrong with using a different name.

Yehoodi, thanks for all the info. Appreciate it. However, I really didn't need a lesson about trademarks. Go to my profile. My point being, whether you, Texas A&M, the United States, and/or anyone involved in their lawsuits or commenting about this, is nothing more than siding on dollars to me. That's my opinion. Trademarks/Copyrights ensure the rights to it's owners. I happen to agree with that. Some TMs & CRs are just insanely ludicrous to me. This is one of them, IMO. So, we can agree to disagree, and leave at that. I'm done with this nonsense.

[Yehoodi]

They went nearly 70 years without some legal writ stating their fans were the "official and original" 12th man. If they needed to have it legally recognized by the government after all that time then they've failed.

A&M kid: "Dad, why are we called the 12th man?"

A&M Dad: "Well son because the government and lawyers say we are. Nevermind the fact it's a pretty common designation for football fans and all around sports in general. And be sure to let me know if you see ANYONE trying to use that title cuz we'll call the lawyers and sue them! It's the American way son."

 

They had legal rights in the mark dating back to when they used in a manner to distinguish their fans as the 12th man, which appears to date back to at least the 1930s when the Cadets would stand during the game as the 12th man.   Their rights legally vested at that point.  There is NO NEED to register contrary to your claim of some legal writ being required to establish rights in a mark.  Indeed, many folks do not bother to register marks (due to the expense) and see fit to leave them unregistered, but it does not make them any less viable or less legal without enforceable rights.   Sometimes those folks will mark their trademarks, and are allowed to do so, with the letters "TM", I am sure you have seen this designation.  Once you register one can use the "R" in the circle signifying the mark is registered with the USPTO.

 

As for this "common usage" or "its an easy thing to think up"  I am not buying what you and others are talking about.  In the 40 plus years of watching football I can never, ever, recall a time in which I remember a fan base in the stands being referred to as the 12th man, ever.   Sure maybe I did not see, or forget I read, an article written by Bob Ryan of the Globe in 1985 calling the Miami Dolphins' fans (or some other team) the 12th man in a game against the pats, or something along those lines, but frankly there are very few and very far between, and most critically are a passing reference.  If the name is a common as you say it is, where are all of the references?  Indeed if it was common, like a "fans are going crazy tonight" where are all of the announcers saying "well the 12th man is helping the team tonight"  

 

The only recollection I have of a fan base calling itself the 12th man is the Seattle Seahawks and that is it.  Perhaps that infuses in your mind a commonality in the name.  But that does not change history from 1922 to 2005.  What someone does in 2005 does not make it common in 1945. 

 

Sure there are few references one can find on the internet of colleges sports writers or colleges in an isolated instance calling their fans the 12th man or something along those lines. But again that is not dispositive on the A&M trademark.  First, its does not look like they used it a manner to establish it as a trademark.  And second, and just as critical, even if they did somehow do this, they did not continue to do so and so any rights in the mark or its existence is abandoned; and thus, have no effect on A&M's mark.

 

Hey, when I first saw this thread, I thought it was a ploy by the school as, imo, that name belongs to the Seahawks, so what is A&M complaining about I thought.  But once I did a little research, found out that the heritage runs back to 1922 and a particular game and student, that their Cadets have been standing in the stands since the 1930s as the 12th man ready to go in the game if needed, that the school built a statute in honor of this student, the fact that they have a sign in the stadium and filed for trademark in the late 80s and was granted, that all I needed to know.   The fact that a few isolated references have been made with same name does not change it for me any less than folks calling themselves a Burger King at a BBQ effects the Burger King trademark.   After all isn't is "easy" to think that the top man or company to make burgers is the King of the group?

[Yehoodi]

Yehoodi, thanks for all the info. Appreciate it. However, I really didn't need a lesson about trademarks. Go to my profile. My point being, whether you, Texas A&M, the United States, and/or anyone involved in their lawsuits or commenting about this, is nothing more than siding on dollars to me. That's my opinion. Trademarks/Copyrights ensure the rights to it's owners. I happen to agree with that. Some TMs & CRs are just insanely ludicrous to me. This is one of them, IMO. So, we can agree to disagree, and leave at that. I'm done with this nonsense.

 

Your Welcome.  Fair enough, we see it different then and I understand your position regarding the money issue and trademarks that may not be ones that can be trademark as being generic.  There have been marks which I have seen which I do not agree should be given trademark protection as they are generic, or for some other reasons.   So I understand where you are coming from, we just differ on this particular one.

 

Yah, when I first saw this thread I thought the school was trying to pull a fast one till I did a little research and came to a different opinion.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to read my posts.

[ColtRider]

Your Welcome.  Fair enough, we see it different then and I understand your position regarding the money issue and trademarks that may not be ones that can be trademark as being generic.  There have been marks which I have seen which I do not agree should be given trademark protection as they are generic, or for some other reasons.   So I understand where you are coming from, we just differ on this particular one.

 

Yah, when I first saw this thread I thought the school was trying to pull a fast one till I did a little research and came to a different opinion.

 

Thanks again for taking the time to read my posts.

Whether you know this or not, I _always_ read your posts. You are extremely intelligent when it comes to law. I'm assuming you are, in fact, an attorney. You just strike me as someone who has/is/continue to be involved with that profession. I know you're a Patriot fan. That's your only downfall. Seriously though, thanks for visiting the forum from time to time. It's very enlightening. And please, continue to do so. Nothing wrong at all learning from the knowledge you possess. Thanks.

[Yehoodi]

Whether you know this or not, I _always_ read your posts. You are extremely intelligent when it comes to law. I'm assuming you are, in fact, an attorney. You just strike me as someone who has/is/continue to be involved with that profession. I know you're a Patriot fan. That's your only downfall. Seriously though, thanks for visiting the forum from time to time. It's very enlightening. And please, continue to do so. Nothing wrong at all learning from the knowledge you possess. Thanks.

 

Thanks for the kind comments and the support.   .  Yes I am an attorney, my background is Chem. Engineering and then wanted to work for myself which I do.  Although I have practiced in IP, its tough as most folks can not afford to go forward as I mainly deal with individuals.  I do most of my work in immigration and criminal appeals.

 

This is a fun forum to come to, there are a lot of nice, intelligent and thoughtful posters including you.  I do not always get the time to read a lot of post but it is fun to discuss things on the net.

 

Yes I am a pats fans.  I heard they have medicine now to help cure that issue.   .

[LucasOilStadium]

Aren't Texas A&M University  also supposed to do the same to the Seattle Seahawks?  They honor and encourage the '12th Man' during and in their home games at CenturyLink Field. I don't know if the Seahawks trademarked their own 12th Man though.

[RockThatBlue]

Aren't Texas A&M University also supposed to do the same to the Seattle Seahawks? They honor and encourage the '12th Man' during and in their home games at CenturyLink Field. I don't know if the Seahawks trademarked their own 12th Man though.

They pay to use it.

[ColtRider]

Thanks for the kind comments and the support. . Yes I am an attorney, my background is Chem. Engineering and then wanted to work for myself which I do. Although I have practiced in IP, its tough as most folks can not afford to go forward as I mainly deal with individuals. I do most of my work in immigration and criminal appeals.

This is a fun forum to come to, there are a lot of nice, intelligent and thoughtful posters including you. I do not always get the time to read a lot of post but it is fun to discuss things on the net.

Yes I am a pats fans. I heard they have medicine now to help cure that issue. .

That last sentence : C.itrus O.ranges L.aced T.ogether S.erved on a large platter next to a big bowl of chicken soup.

Try it.

...take care, Mr. Y...

[Randolph Duke]

The claim to the 12th Man trademark is not as strong as Texas A&M Iniversity would have people believe.

 

People may want to read this story to get some background on the school's claim, especially their claim that the tradition dates back to 1922 (the 1922 date is highly important to the university's claim)

http://www.hornsports.com/articles/featured1395317068/texas-am-and-the-12th-man-the-story-of-th-r3866

 

Here is a link to where a Wall Street Journal writer who secializes on word and phrase origins researched the origins of the phrase "12th Man"

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-twelfth-man-a-football-phrase-with-disputed-roots/

 

Finally (for now) here is a link to a April 15, 1964 Dallas Morning News article where E. King Gill (the school's 12th Man) himself slearly says that the claim the school started using the phrase in any association with him was untrue and that the university story, while loosely based on an actual event, actually is from a fictionalized radio play the school put together some 17 years after the 1922 game and that before 1939, he hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition at the school.

 

http://imgur.com/4876CD4

 

Long story short - TAMU has been lying about their 12th Man "tradition" for years and even intentionally misrepresented their claim to the phrase in their federal trademark filings.

Edited November 18, 2015 by 21isSuperman

[southwest1]

Thanks for the kind comments and the support.   .  Yes I am an attorney, my background is Chem. Engineering and then wanted to work for myself which I do.  Although I have practiced in IP, its tough as most folks can not afford to go forward as I mainly deal with individuals.  I do most of my work in immigration and criminal appeals.

 

This is a fun forum to come to, there are a lot of nice, intelligent and thoughtful posters including you.  I do not always get the time to read a lot of post but it is fun to discuss things on the net.

 

Yes I am a pats fans.  I heard they have medicine now to help cure that issue.   .

Wow, an attorney with a strong legal mind with a background in Chemistry & engineering too. That's very impressive Yehoodi. I always wanna hang out with sharp, intelligent people such as yourself because others with think I'm smart too by mere association with you similar to the notion of IQ by osmosis or brain power by close proximity. 

 

In all seriousness Yehoodi, you are well respected on here for good reason. You are open minded & well versed on a variety of subjects. In addition, you have a knack for making complicated concepts seem simple, digestible, & easy to comprehend. Very few people possess those character traits. 

 

Regarding your allegiance to the Patriots, it's perfectly fine to me. It's not like your loyal to that artificial "America's Team" called the Cowboys. At least, your franchise can win SB hardware in this century without a 20 year drought. LOL! I always like facing Brady, Bill, & company because you're a measuring stick to me [your team I mean] for how far we need to go to reach our championship goals year in; year out.

 

It's always must see TV watching your club too. That Giants game came down to the wire too. I love games like that...edge of your seat stuff. 

 

You're a valuable contributor on this forum Yehoodi. I order you to never leave this site. Okay, think of it more like a polite suggestion then. LOL! Alright, I'm done ranting now.  

[southwest1]

The claim to the 12th Man trademark is not as strong as Texas A&M Iniversity would have people believe.

 

People may want to read this story to get some background on the school's claim, especially their claim that the tradition dates back to 1922 (the 1922 date is highly important to the university's claim)

http://www.hornsports.com/articles/featured1395317068/texas-am-and-the-12th-man-the-story-of-th-r3866

 

Here is a link to where a Wall Street Journal writer who secializes on word and phrase origins researched the origins of the phrase "12th Man"

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-twelfth-man-a-football-phrase-with-disputed-roots/

 

Finally (for now) here is a link to a April 15, 1964 Dallas Morning News article where E. King Gill (the school's 12th Man) himself slearly says that the claim the school started using the phrase in any association with him was untrue and that the university story, while loosely based on an actual event, actually is from a fictionalized radio play the school put together some 17 years after the 1922 game and that before 1939, he hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition at the school.

 

http://imgur.com/4876CD4

 

Long story short - TAMU has been lying about their 12th Man "tradition" for years and even intentionally misrepresented their claim to the phrase in their federal trademark filings.

A nice post here RD encapsulating all the relevant information about the "12 Man" controversy & the phrases original usage & ownership as it pertains to copyright & any subsequent infringement concerns. 

[ColtRider]

The claim to the 12th Man trademark is not as strong as Texas A&M Iniversity would have people believe.

People may want to read this story to get some background on the school's claim, especially their claim that the tradition dates back to 1922 (the 1922 date is highly important to the university's claim)

http://www.hornsports.com/articles/featured1395317068/texas-am-and-the-12th-man-the-story-of-th-r3866

Here is a link to where a Wall Street Journal writer who secializes on word and phrase origins researched the origins of the phrase "12th Man"

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-twelfth-man-a-football-phrase-with-disputed-roots/

Finally (for now) here is a link to a April 15, 1964 Dallas Morning News article where E. King Gill (the school's 12th Man) himself slearly says that the claim the school started using the phrase in any association with him was untrue and that the university story, while loosely based on an actual event, actually is from a fictionalized radio play the school put together some 17 years after the 1922 game and that before 1939, he hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition at the school.

http://imgur.com/4876CD4

Long story short - TAMU has been lying about their 12th Man "tradition" for years and even intentionally misrepresented their claim to the phrase in their federal trademark filings.

Wow. A very interesting read on things concerning the "12th Man". So, in addition to the University of Minnesota, we have Dartmouth, and many other schools using this phrase before 1922. And, after also. What made me a little bit bothered by all of this was TAMU's decision to charge others for its registered trademark after 1990. I think it's cool to claim the mark and own it. Actually to defend it. I have no problem with that. However, to charge for such a generic slogan as this, goes beyond my scope to defense of it. To me, at least, it then becomes a situation about money & lawsuits. That's my problem with this. Just my opinion.

[Randolph Duke]

Wow. A very interesting read on things concerning the "12th Man". So, in addition to the University of Minnesota, we have Dartmouth, and many other schools using this phrase before 1922. And, after also. What made me a little bit bothered by all of this was TAMU's decision to charge others for its registered trademark after 1990. I think it's cool to claim the mark and own it. Actually to defend it. I have no problem with that. However, to charge for such a generic slogan as this, goes beyond my scope to defense of it. To me, at least, it then becomes a situation about money & lawsuits. That's my problem with this. Just my opinion.

The problem the school seems to have is that they have been telling people their tradition dates back to 1922 when they were down to their last substitute and for his willingness to come to the team's aid that day he was celebrated as the school's "12th Man" ever since.

 

That is the fictitious version that was fabricated for the 1939 radio play that E. King Gill (the individual who came from teh stands, but nobody cared anything about at the time) explains in the 1964 Dallas Morning news article as well as during an on campus speech (linked to the hornsports.com article).

 

The reality is that Gill did come from he stands, but no one noticed and no one cared.

 

Here is the school's 1922 yearbook in which the game is talked about. While the the story mentioned "individual honors for the day were many and high" not one of them went to E. King Gill, the guy the school claims was celebrated and lauded for his contributions that day. If the school's greatest tradition in fact started on the January day in 1922, wouldn't the school's yearbook have mentioned someing, anything, aboutthe "12th Man"? The phrase isn't mentioned anywhere in the school's yearbook that year. http://bookreader.library.tamu.edu/book.php?id=yb1922&getbook=Go#page/n407/mode/2up/search/classic

 

Here is E. King Gill's 1924 senior yearbook picture where his contributions to the school's sports teams are mentioned. Yet again, not a single mention of Gill connected in any way with what the school is claiming to have been a celebrated tradition dating back years before and not a single mention of any 12th Man tradition. http://bookreader.library.tamu.edu/book.php?id=yb1924&getbook=Go#page/n363/mode/2up/search/gill

 

All this makes sense when you take Gill's own explanation that there was no 12th Man tradition that he had heard of at the school prior to the fictionalized 1939 radio play. Gill gave that explanation to an assebled audience of school alumni on the school's campus in 1964. If the school actually had a 12th Man tradition prior to 1939, why did he give some other version of events and wouldn't someone have corrected him?

 

The reality is that the school has fraudulently been promoting a false version of their tradition and how it originated. That would be ok, if the school hadn't carried those fraudulent misrepresentation over to their trademark application and sworn under oath and under penalty of perjury that the 1922 date was the date they started the tradition. There is not a single newspaper database that has any association with any 12th Man tradition, E. King Gill and the year 1922. There is no such record of any sort connecting E. King Gill to the phrase "12th Man" prior to 1939. The 1922 date is a fraudulent fabrication by the school to misrepresent their association with the phrase. And one made under oath under penalty of perjury.

 

The Colts have a great chance of fighting this lawsuit.

[Randolph Duke]

If anyone is interested, here is an online database of Texas A&M yearbooks.

 

http://library.tamu.edu/yearbooks/

 

The yearbooks have a search feature in the upper right hand corner of the reader. enter 12th Man or twelfth man and see how often it comes up in association with E. King Gill prior to 1939. For that matter, see how often it comes up at all prior to about 1980.

 

The school unquestionably used the phrase "12th Man" to refer to its fanbase, butthere are instances where sportswriters in Texas used the phrase to refer to the fanbase of The University of Texas in connection with the annual TAMU/ UT football game at least until 1939. If the phrase had so closely been associated with Texas A7M starting in 1922, why were major newspapers still using the phrase to also refer to the fanbase of TAMU's hated rival decades later?

 

We know the school newspaper used the phrase to refer to the school's fanbase as early as 1921. In searching the school's yearbooks, search for any manner in which the school seems to be using the phrase after 1921 differently that they were using it in 1921.

 

Finally, here is a link to the complaint the school filed against the team. http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/TAMU+vs.+Colts+Inc+Lawsuit.pdf

 

Read paragraph 7 where the school claims the 12th Man "tradition" and E. King Gill were intricately linked starting in 1922

 

Here is a 1925 grocery story ad from the Byran, Texas newspaper http://imgur.com/KgAH7ha

 

If the school's claim to the phrase is based on a tradition started in 1922 as a remembrance of the actions of E. King Gill, why is a local business claiming cheerleader E.O. Buck to be the school's "12th Man?"

 

The answer is because there was no TAMU 12th Man tradition until the fabricated 1939 radio play and the school has wanted to avoid any discussion of the 1939 radio play because it would show the story, as they tell it, is patently false. Gill was not the only available substitute that day, he wasn't celebrated after the game and the traditions around the "12th Man" at TAMU didn't happen until after late 1939.

 

The Colts will crush TAMU if this thing gets litigated. Rest assured, the team has this info.

[ColtRider]

The problem the school seems to have is that they have been telling people their tradition dates back to 1922 when they were down to their last substitute and for his willingness to come to the team's aid that day he was celebrated as the school's "12th Man" ever since.

 

That is the fictitious version that was fabricated for the 1939 radio play that E. King Gill (the individual who came from teh stands, but nobody cared anything about at the time) explains in the 1964 Dallas Morning news article as well as during an on campus speech (linked to the hornsports.com article).

 

The reality is that Gill did come from he stands, but no one noticed and no one cared.

 

Here is the school's 1922 yearbook in which the game is talked about. While the the story mentioned "individual honors for the day were many and high" not one of them went to E. King Gill, the guy the school claims was celebrated and lauded for his contributions that day. If the school's greatest tradition in fact started on the January day in 1922, wouldn't the school's yearbook have mentioned someing, anything, aboutthe "12th Man"? The phrase isn't mentioned anywhere in the school's yearbook that year. http://bookreader.library.tamu.edu/book.php?id=yb1922&getbook=Go#page/n407/mode/2up/search/classic

 

Here is E. King Gill's 1924 senior yearbook picture where his contributions to the school's sports teams are mentioned. Yet again, not a single mention of Gill connected in any way with what the school is claiming to have been a celebrated tradition dating back years before and not a single mention of any 12th Man tradition. http://bookreader.library.tamu.edu/book.php?id=yb1924&getbook=Go#page/n363/mode/2up/search/gill

 

All this makes sense when you take Gill's own explanation that there was no 12th Man tradition that he had heard of at the school prior to the fictionalized 1939 radio play. Gill gave that explanation to an assebled audience of school alumni on the school's campus in 1964. If the school actually had a 12th Man tradition prior to 1939, why did he give some other version of events and wouldn't someone have corrected him?

 

The reality is that the school has fraudulently been promoting a false version of their tradition and how it originated. That would be ok, if the school hadn't carried those fraudulent misrepresentation over to their trademark application and sworn under oath and under penalty of perjury that the 1922 date was the date they started the tradition. There is not a single newspaper database that has any association with any 12th Man tradition, E. King Gill and the year 1922. There is no such record of any sort connecting E. King Gill to the phrase "12th Man" prior to 1939. The 1922 date is a fraudulent fabrication by the school to misrepresent their association with the phrase. And one made under oath under penalty of perjury.

 

The Colts have a great chance of fighting this lawsuit.

Whoa! That's incredible. Had no idea about the newspaper database, or Gill's non-connection to them. Wow.

Thanks for all of the info you have provided, Randolph Duke! Much appreciated.

[jet1968]

_{I was in College Station, Texas yesterday morning. The first thing I saw coming into the town was a little car with a 12th man sticker on the bumper. I wanted so bad to run into the back of her to ruin her sticker. I decided against so that I would have a 12th man "sticker" law suit against me.}

[ColtRider]

If anyone is interested, here is an online database of Texas A&M yearbooks.

 

http://library.tamu.edu/yearbooks/

 

The yearbooks have a search feature in the upper right hand corner of the reader. enter 12th Man or twelfth man and see how often it comes up in association with E. King Gill prior to 1939. For that matter, see how often it comes up at all prior to about 1980.

 

The school unquestionably used the phrase "12th Man" to refer to its fanbase, butthere are instances where sportswriters in Texas used the phrase to refer to the fanbase of The University of Texas in connection with the annual TAMU/ UT football game at least until 1939. If the phrase had so closely been associated with Texas A7M starting in 1922, why were major newspapers still using the phrase to also refer to the fanbase of TAMU's hated rival decades later?

 

We know the school newspaper used the phrase to refer to the school's fanbase as early as 1921. In searching the school's yearbooks, search for any manner in which the school seems to be using the phrase after 1921 differently that they were using it in 1921.

 

Finally, here is a link to the complaint the school filed against the team. http://media.graytvinc.com/documents/TAMU+vs.+Colts+Inc+Lawsuit.pdf

 

Read paragraph 7 where the school claims the 12th Man "tradition" and E. King Gill were intricately linked starting in 1922

 

Here is a 1925 grocery story ad from the Byran, Texas newspaper http://imgur.com/KgAH7ha

 

If the school's claim to the phrase is based on a tradition started in 1922 as a remembrance of the actions of E. King Gill, why is a local business claiming cheerleader E.O. Buck to be the school's "12th Man?"

 

The answer is because there was no TAMU 12th Man tradition until the fabricated 1939 radio play and the school has wanted to avoid any discussion of the 1939 radio play because it would show the story, as they tell it, is patently false. Gill was not the only available substitute that day, he wasn't celebrated after the game and the traditions around the "12th Man" at TAMU didn't happen until after late 1939.

 

The Colts will crush TAMU if this thing gets litigated. Rest assured, the team has this info.

Even more incredible. Why has not anyone challenged Texas A&M on this premise, yet?

[Randolph Duke]

Even more incredible. Why has not anyone challenged Texas A&M on this premise, yet?

I have to be judicious in answering questions, because as a rookie, my daily posts are limited for the time being, but the short answer is no.

 

Much of the actual and truthful history of the schools 12th Man "tradition" was not widely known until I started researching it a few years ago. I knew of the story and was curious as to why there wasn't more information about the actual events of the 1922 game (if you look at the 12th Man (football) wiki page, there is a pic of E. King Gill and some clippings showing the game score, but absolutely nothing mentioning E. King Gill on that day and nothing from a contemporaneous thrid party tying E. King Gill to the 12th Man until well past 1939). I was living in Texas at the time, went to the library and pulled up the microfilms of the major newspapers of the state for early January 1922 so I could see what third party, contemporaneous accounts of the incredible event had to say. Not a single newspaper in Texas (I have checked all the papers in Dallas, where the game was held, as well as Houston, Austin and Waco) and no one of the papers mentioned anything about the TAMU team being deeply depleted of substitutes due to injuries and none of them mention anything about E. King Gill.

 

I was extremely courious why no sports writer mentioned anything of an unquestionably incredible human-interest angle to the game, especially when I learned before coming down to the field, Gill had been in the press box with all those same sportswriters (there were only 12,000 fans at the game, so the sports box couldn't have been so big that none of the writers saw the guy up there spotting for another writer go down and suit up. The writer Gill had been spotting players for was Jinx Tucker from the Waco paper. His 1922 article describing the game is linked to the original Hornsports article). Even Jinx Tucker mentions nothing about a rash of injuries (there were actually only three TAMU players injured during the game) and he mentions nothing of the guy who was sitting next to him leaving to suit up or that same guy saving the day and his being carried off the field as the hero of the day. That makes no sense.

 

I now know why none of these events were talked about in any way in 1922 because those events, all crucial events to the TAMU defense of the 1922 claim, never actually happened. Gill left the press box, suited up for an injured player (named Heine Weir) , stood on the sideline with 9 other available substitutes and no one mentioned it again until the president of the school's alumni association (E.E. McQuillen) was asked to write a fictional play about their football program in 1939 and he picked the 1922 game to fictionalize.  The school's student body also has a tradition of standing during games to signify "their readiness to come to the team's aid" but that didn't start until 1939. It was another "tradition" that grew from the fabricated radio play.

 

If you ever want to have some fun with a TAMU grad in talking about the story, point out there were two thousand students at the game yet only one was willing to come down to aid the team. What would have happened if that guy also got hurt? Shouldn't three or four guys have come down and suited up, just in case? The reason there was only one of two thousand students willing to come down is that when the story was fabricated in 1939, McQuillen never thought of that detail.

 

Soon after the radio play, WWII started and by the time the war was over, things had changed. The GI bill brought millions of men back and many of them attended various colleges. New powerhouse dynasties were created (Oklahoma Is a prime example). The phrase "12th Man" largely fell out of favor, but continues to be used by hundreds of schools, including TAMU for the next few decades (as explained in the original Ben Zimmer article).

 

By 1956, TAMU was on probation for cheating and their school started a program defining period of 16 losing seasons in 17 years. By the mid 70s, their fortunes had begun to get revived and by the early 80s, they wanted to put the past behind them and to redefine their program. That is when the whole "12th Man" thing at their school shifted from just a curiosity and took on its current life.

 

The statue of E. King Gill, that until the recent stadium renovation stood outside Kyle Field stadium, was a gift from the school's Class of 1980. If Gill was such a revered figure starting in 1922, why did they wait into after 1980 to creat a statue of him on a campus littered with monuments to everythingimaginagle, including dead dogs? The "Home of the 12th Man" lettering on their stadium wasn't put there until the very late 1980s, the same time they asserted their right to the trademark, based upon a "tradition" that they claim started in 1922 (why no claim earlier, why no E. King Gill statue earlier, why no recognition of the "tradition" in their stadium earlier?).

 

Once the school was granted the trademark, people evidently took the representations of the 1922 date made under oath and under penalty of perjury at face value. Why wouldn't they? The school was an arm of the Texas state government? Would a state official actually risk getting accused or perjury for submitting a fraudulent trademark application? Well, it looks like the answer might probably be "yes." That is how fervently those people take their "traditions." And make no doubt the school officials who decided to state the 1922 date on the trademark application knew of the 1939 radio play. The school represents every one of their alumni are more aware of the history of their school than any other fanbase. They knew damned well E. King Gill wasn't attached to any 12th Man "tradition" at the school prior to the radio play as he repeatedly explained to the press and to the assembled alumni during a campus event in 1964 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 1939 radio play (Do the math. He spoke on campus in 1964. Was he celebrating the 42nd anniversary of the 1922 game or the 25th anniversary the the radio play?).

 

Just recently, with more information becoming available from online databases, the school's (alleged) scheme is begining to unravel. When Seattle settled in 2006, it seems the Seahawks organization had an inkling something was wrong with the school's claim, which is why they settled for less than what it would have cost to litigate the matter. Last year, the school wanted to obtain the web domain "12thMan.com" that someone had been using in commerce for decades and, instead of asserting a claim of infringiment in that case, they paid the owner. Also, there was a case in Buffalo last year where a guy named Chuckie Sonntag was getting bullied by the school about his use of the phrase in running a "12thmanthunder" website. It is my understanding the school also paid to hush that up, other than risk having the information I have been discussing today brough out in open court.

 

This brings us to this case.

 

We will see if the Colts want to use any of this information to defend their actions agains the school's lawsuit. I linked the lawsuit and anyone can plainly read the claims of the school are still that it all dates back to a continuous and interrupted use of the phrase since 1922 in a distinct and easily diferentiated manner from which the phrase was used by the school's newspaper in 1921 and in a a distinct and easily diferentiated manner from which the phrase was used by hundreds, if not thousands, of organization used the phrase for decades before 1922 and after 1922.

 

The case against the Colts may well be the first time a major organization has had all the information I have set forth here today and is willing to litigate and, if the Colts litigate, my guess is the trademark is nullified.

[Randolph Duke]

I have to hope a plane tonight, so I will use my last of 5 posts for today to leave you with this now and answer any questions tomorrow when I get 5 more rookie post.

 

Your Channel 8 is the CBS affiliate in Indianapolis and evidently their sports department covers the Colts. CBS Sports has a college sportcaster named Verne Lundquist who broadcasts SEC conference games. Texas A&M is in the SEC and, as such, CBS Sports has a vested interest in promoting SEC games and SEC teams as well as in conveniently ignoring any stories CBS Sports on-air personalities may be aware of that might cast an SEC team in an unfavorable light.

 

During the 1922 Texas A&M game that is so pivotal to the Texas A&M trademark claims, the Texas A&M head football coach was a guy named D.X. Bible. After he coached Texas A&M, D.X. Bible was head coach and then AD at Texas from 1937 until 1956. After retiring in 1956, he remained living in Austin until his death in 1980.

 

While living in Austin, the family living next to D.X. Bible had a little boy in 1940. Bible was friends with the boy as he grew up and once the boy was old enough to choose a career, Bible encouraged him to be a sports broadcaster. The little boys name? Verne Lundquist.

 

Yep, Verne Lundquist was neighbors growing up with the guy who was the coach of the famous 1922 TAMU game and, growing up in football crazed Texas, there is no way Lundquist didn't talk to Bible about his coaching exploits and there is no way Verne Lundquists doesn't know today the Texas A&M story is largely a fabrication.

 

I would call the sportscaster at CBS and ask him how they could be reporting on the Colts as well as the lawsuit and have a fellow network sportscaster with information that would shed light on the validity of the TAMU claims but not do a story on the matter. I am sure the sportscaster could pick up the phone and have Lundquist give some very interesting information, bit I am just as sure the brass at CBS Sports would protect their interest in promoting SEC football games and not allow WISH Channel 8 to broadcast the information.

 

I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors or not stating anything clearly enough. I usually post my comments and go back to edit from the screen, but as a rookie, My posts are having to go through the moderators and I can't edit anything yet.

 

I hope all this helps you understand the background behind the lawsuit against the team. If you want some pointed questions asked and some additional information dug up, contact your local media at the Star and especially at Channel 8. As soon as my posting permissions are refreshed tomorrow with another 5 rookie posts, I will try to answer any questions.

[ColtsBlueFL]

The claim to the 12th Man trademark is not as strong as Texas A&M Iniversity would have people believe.

 

People may want to read this story to get some background on the school's claim, especially their claim that the tradition dates back to 1922 (the 1922 date is highly important to the university's claim)

http://www.hornsports.com/articles/featured1395317068/texas-am-and-the-12th-man-the-story-of-th-r3866

 

Here is a link to where a Wall Street Journal writer who secializes on word and phrase origins researched the origins of the phrase "12th Man"

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wordroutes/the-twelfth-man-a-football-phrase-with-disputed-roots/

 

Finally (for now) here is a link to a April 15, 1964 Dallas Morning News article where E. King Gill (the school's 12th Man) himself slearly says that the claim the school started using the phrase in any association with him was untrue and that the university story, while loosely based on an actual event, actually is from a fictionalized radio play the school put together some 17 years after the 1922 game and that before 1939, he hadn't heard of any 12th Man tradition at the school.

 

http://imgur.com/4876CD4

 

Long story short - TAMU has been lying about their 12th Man "tradition" for years and even intentionally misrepresented their claim to the phrase in their federal trademark filings.

 

 

How does "Incontestable Status" figure in now?

 

"Four additional Trademark claims related to the "12th Man" term were also filed and granted at later dates by Texas A&M University (See U.S. Ser. Nos. 74560726, 76671314, 85977835 and 85851199), the first three of which have achieved Incontestable Status as a result of its section 15 affidavit with the Patent and Trademark Office"

[ColtsBlueFL]

How does "Incontestable Status" figure in now?

 

"Four additional Trademark claims related to the "12th Man" term were also filed and granted at later dates by Texas A&M University (See U.S. Ser. Nos. 74560726, 76671314, 85977835 and 85851199), the first three of which have achieved Incontestable Status as a result of its section 15 affidavit with the Patent and Trademark Office"

 

Here's Randolf Duke's reply:

 

I am out of posts for today, so I will answer here.

If it had been an individual that filed the false trademark, the situation would have been different. The argument I have made (and of which the Colts are aware I have made) is that TAMU is an arm of the state government. As such, the government has no powers or privileges that have not be expressly granted by the people.

TAMU has claimed they are more aware of the history of their school than any other alumni group in the nation is aware of theirs. therefore, the school having claimed the tradition started in 1922 when E. King Gill tells us it was part of a fabricated radio play in 1939 means the school was aware of the 1939 radio play, but intentionally chose to ignore the 1939 events and to instead knowingly and fraudulently chose to make the false 1922 claims.

If the 1922 claims are not true (which I believe they are not), the school intentionally perpetrated a fraud. The government can't make false statements in order to obtain money from the people it otherwise would not be rightfully entitled to. The government also cannot perpetrate frauds.

My argument is the texas government (through the university) is obligated to withdraw the incorrect claims of 1922 and correct its filings with the federal government. Also, all moneys received by the government based on false representations (trademark royalties and settlements) must be returned to the people.

The key here is the Texas state government has acted in a questionable manner. Arguably, the very filing of a false document with the federal government to obtain property (money) from the people that the government would not have been rightfully entitled to if the truth had been told makes the actions of the Texas government in this matter unconstitutional acts. There is no relief given to the government when it acts unconstitutionally. The Texas state government should not be entitled to continue to deprive the people of property using the power of the courts based on an unconstitutional act.

In short, the state of Texas cannot be allowed to keep the trademark if they acted unconstitutionally to obtain it.

******************************************************

 

Thanks, are you a Longhorn, by chance?  ;-)

[ColtRider]

I have to be judicious in answering questions, because as a rookie, my daily posts are limited for the time being, but the short answer is no.

 

Much of the actual and truthful history of the schools 12th Man "tradition" was not widely known until I started researching it a few years ago. I knew of the story and was curious as to why there wasn't more information about the actual events of the 1922 game (if you look at the 12th Man (football) wiki page, there is a pic of E. King Gill and some clippings showing the game score, but absolutely nothing mentioning E. King Gill on that day and nothing from a contemporaneous thrid party tying E. King Gill to the 12th Man until well past 1939). I was living in Texas at the time, went to the library and pulled up the microfilms of the major newspapers of the state for early January 1922 so I could see what third party, contemporaneous accounts of the incredible event had to say. Not a single newspaper in Texas (I have checked all the papers in Dallas, where the game was held, as well as Houston, Austin and Waco) and no one of the papers mentioned anything about the TAMU team being deeply depleted of substitutes due to injuries and none of them mention anything about E. King Gill.

 

I was extremely courious why no sports writer mentioned anything of an unquestionably incredible human-interest angle to the game, especially when I learned before coming down to the field, Gill had been in the press box with all those same sportswriters (there were only 12,000 fans at the game, so the sports box couldn't have been so big that none of the writers saw the guy up there spotting for another writer go down and suit up. The writer Gill had been spotting players for was Jinx Tucker from the Waco paper. His 1922 article describing the game is linked to the original Hornsports article). Even Jinx Tucker mentions nothing about a rash of injuries (there were actually only three TAMU players injured during the game) and he mentions nothing of the guy who was sitting next to him leaving to suit up or that same guy saving the day and his being carried off the field as the hero of the day. That makes no sense.

 

I now know why none of these events were talked about in any way in 1922 because those events, all crucial events to the TAMU defense of the 1922 claim, never actually happened. Gill left the press box, suited up for an injured player (named Heine Weir) , stood on the sideline with 9 other available substitutes and no one mentioned it again until the president of the school's alumni association (E.E. McQuillen) was asked to write a fictional play about their football program in 1939 and he picked the 1922 game to fictionalize.  The school's student body also has a tradition of standing during games to signify "their readiness to come to the team's aid" but that didn't start until 1939. It was another "tradition" that grew from the fabricated radio play.

 

If you ever want to have some fun with a TAMU grad in talking about the story, point out there were two thousand students at the game yet only one was willing to come down to aid the team. What would have happened if that guy also got hurt? Shouldn't three or four guys have come down and suited up, just in case? The reason there was only one of two thousand students willing to come down is that when the story was fabricated in 1939, McQuillen never thought of that detail.

 

Soon after the radio play, WWII started and by the time the war was over, things had changed. The GI bill brought millions of men back and many of them attended various colleges. New powerhouse dynasties were created (Oklahoma Is a prime example). The phrase "12th Man" largely fell out of favor, but continues to be used by hundreds of schools, including TAMU for the next few decades (as explained in the original Ben Zimmer article).

 

By 1956, TAMU was on probation for cheating and their school started a program defining period of 16 losing seasons in 17 years. By the mid 70s, their fortunes had begun to get revived and by the early 80s, they wanted to put the past behind them and to redefine their program. That is when the whole "12th Man" thing at their school shifted from just a curiosity and took on its current life.

 

The statue of E. King Gill, that until the recent stadium renovation stood outside Kyle Field stadium, was a gift from the school's Class of 1980. If Gill was such a revered figure starting in 1922, why did they wait into after 1980 to creat a statue of him on a campus littered with monuments to everythingimaginagle, including dead dogs? The "Home of the 12th Man" lettering on their stadium wasn't put there until the very late 1980s, the same time they asserted their right to the trademark, based upon a "tradition" that they claim started in 1922 (why no claim earlier, why no E. King Gill statue earlier, why no recognition of the "tradition" in their stadium earlier?).

 

Once the school was granted the trademark, people evidently took the representations of the 1922 date made under oath and under penalty of perjury at face value. Why wouldn't they? The school was an arm of the Texas state government? Would a state official actually risk getting accused or perjury for submitting a fraudulent trademark application? Well, it looks like the answer might probably be "yes." That is how fervently those people take their "traditions." And make no doubt the school officials who decided to state the 1922 date on the trademark application knew of the 1939 radio play. The school represents every one of their alumni are more aware of the history of their school than any other fanbase. They knew damned well E. King Gill wasn't attached to any 12th Man "tradition" at the school prior to the radio play as he repeatedly explained to the press and to the assembled alumni during a campus event in 1964 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the 1939 radio play (Do the math. He spoke on campus in 1964. Was he celebrating the 42nd anniversary of the 1922 game or the 25th anniversary the the radio play?).

 

Just recently, with more information becoming available from online databases, the school's (alleged) scheme is begining to unravel. When Seattle settled in 2006, it seems the Seahawks organization had an inkling something was wrong with the school's claim, which is why they settled for less than what it would have cost to litigate the matter. Last year, the school wanted to obtain the web domain "12thMan.com" that someone had been using in commerce for decades and, instead of asserting a claim of infringiment in that case, they paid the owner. Also, there was a case in Buffalo last year where a guy named Chuckie Sonntag was getting bullied by the school about his use of the phrase in running a "12thmanthunder" website. It is my understanding the school also paid to hush that up, other than risk having the information I have been discussing today brough out in open court.

 

This brings us to this case.

 

We will see if the Colts want to use any of this information to defend their actions agains the school's lawsuit. I linked the lawsuit and anyone can plainly read the claims of the school are still that it all dates back to a continuous and interrupted use of the phrase since 1922 in a distinct and easily diferentiated manner from which the phrase was used by the school's newspaper in 1921 and in a a distinct and easily diferentiated manner from which the phrase was used by hundreds, if not thousands, of organization used the phrase for decades before 1922 and after 1922.

 

The case against the Colts may well be the first time a major organization has had all the information I have set forth here today and is willing to litigate and, if the Colts litigate, my guess is the trademark is nullified.

Goodness sakes. This is just simply amazing to me. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around the thought that Texas A& M could somehow determine this information you've laid out would never see the light of day. No wonder we haven't heard anything from the Colts.

[ColtRider]

I have to hope a plane tonight, so I will use my last of 5 posts for today to leave you with this now and answer any questions tomorrow when I get 5 more rookie post.

Your Channel 8 is the CBS affiliate in Indianapolis and evidently their sports department covers the Colts. CBS Sports has a college sportcaster named Verne Lundquist who broadcasts SEC conference games. Texas A&M is in the SEC and, as such, CBS Sports has a vested interest in promoting SEC games and SEC teams as well as in conveniently ignoring any stories CBS Sports on-air personalities may be aware of that might cast an SEC team in an unfavorable light.

During the 1922 Texas A&M game that is so pivotal to the Texas A&M trademark claims, the Texas A&M head football coach was a guy named D.X. Bible. After he coached Texas A&M, D.X. Bible was head coach and then AD at Texas from 1937 until 1956. After retiring in 1956, he remained living in Austin until his death in 1980.

While living in Austin, the family living next to D.X. Bible had a little boy in 1940. Bible was friends with the boy as he grew up and once the boy was old enough to choose a career, Bible encouraged him to be a sports broadcaster. The little boys name? Verne Lundquist.

Yep, Verne Lundquist was neighbors growing up with the guy who was the coach of the famous 1922 TAMU game and, growing up in football crazed Texas, there is no way Lundquist didn't talk to Bible about his coaching exploits and there is no way Verne Lundquists doesn't know today the Texas A&M story is largely a fabrication.

I would call the sportscaster at CBS and ask him how they could be reporting on the Colts as well as the lawsuit and have a fellow network sportscaster with information that would shed light on the validity of the TAMU claims but not do a story on the matter. I am sure the sportscaster could pick up the phone and have Lundquist give some very interesting information, bit I am just as sure the brass at CBS Sports would protect their interest in promoting SEC football games and not allow WISH Channel 8 to broadcast the information.

I apologize for any spelling or grammatical errors or not stating anything clearly enough. I usually post my comments and go back to edit from the screen, but as a rookie, My posts are having to go through the moderators and I can't edit anything yet.

I hope all this helps you understand the background behind the lawsuit against the team. If you want some pointed questions asked and some additional information dug up, contact your local media at the Star and especially at Channel 8. As soon as my posting permissions are refreshed tomorrow with another 5 rookie posts, I will try to answer any questions.

This thing keeps getting more dicey with every post you put up. Verne Lundquist? "The" Verne Lundquist? Wow. What was the real purpose of him trying to go along with the supposed TAMU story, besides the obvious? A credible journalist/sportscaster like himself? I mean, I get and understand why this may have been silenced by some kind of sorted friendship with Bible or correlation to CBS. But, mercy. A huge risk, if all of this pans out, in or not in a court of law.

[ColtRider]

Here's Randolf Duke's reply:

 

I am out of posts for today, so I will answer here.

If it had been an individual that filed the false trademark, the situation would have been different. The argument I have made (and of which the Colts are aware I have made) is that TAMU is an arm of the state government. As such, the government has no powers or privileges that have not be expressly granted by the people.

TAMU has claimed they are more aware of the history of their school than any other alumni group in the nation is aware of theirs. therefore, the school having claimed the tradition started in 1922 when E. King Gill tells us it was part of a fabricated radio play in 1939 means the school was aware of the 1939 radio play, but intentionally chose to ignore the 1939 events and to instead knowingly and fraudulently chose to make the false 1922 claims.

If the 1922 claims are not true (which I believe they are not), the school intentionally perpetrated a fraud. The government can't make false statements in order to obtain money from the people it otherwise would not be rightfully entitled to. The government also cannot perpetrate frauds.

My argument is the texas government (through the university) is obligated to withdraw the incorrect claims of 1922 and correct its filings with the federal government. Also, all moneys received by the government based on false representations (trademark royalties and settlements) must be returned to the people.

The key here is the Texas state government has acted in a questionable manner. Arguably, the very filing of a false document with the federal government to obtain property (money) from the people that the government would not have been rightfully entitled to if the truth had been told makes the actions of the Texas government in this matter unconstitutional acts. There is no relief given to the government when it acts unconstitutionally. The Texas state government should not be entitled to continue to deprive the people of property using the power of the courts based on an unconstitutional act.

In short, the state of Texas cannot be allowed to keep the trademark if they acted unconstitutionally to obtain it.

******************************************************

 

Thanks, are you a Longhorn, by chance?  ;-)

I totally agree with your assessment, if in fact, this is all proven true. (you sure made a believer out of me) It's also sad. Texas A&M, I have always respected as a university. They groom those Cadets to become military officers. Hope all of this can be taken care of as soon as possible with regards to the Colts and everyone involved. The longer this stuff lingers on, the worse it gets.

Thanks again, Randolf Duke. Your information has been extremely enlightening.