NFL Says “NoDat” To New Orleans Shop Owner

I'm even more disgusted now than I was at the start of this day when I heard the NFL is trying to lay claim to the Fleur de lis and WHODAT! They own NEITHER and have no right to claim them. I'm glad Fleurty Girl can sell their inventory but it infuriates me that they have to pay ANY royalties to the NFL for them. It's just wrong, and it's pure greed on the part of the NFL! I will never buy an official NFL item again if they continue with this nonsense.

NFL is a MOB. Run by Bullies and Criminals. They are doing the exact something a NY Mob would do to a small business but they do it in their own way. Like in Movies where you see the Mob go in the store and tell them you have to give me 30% of your profits or we will murder your family and burn your store down. Its sickening that the NFL can go to someone business and tell them you going to have to pay us 10% of your profits from these homemade merchandises, Something they had nothing to do with in the first place..

It sickening me to think that they allow such behavior from the NFL to do these things to businesses. In my own opinion the fans came up with WHO DAT slang first. For the NFL claiming to this is plain out Stupid. Anything the NFL claims to have for a franchise it was possibly claimed and invented by their fans first...

Funny you should mention the NY Mob. The NFL's corporate offices are in NYC.

Think France will want a cut of that Fleur de lis money!!!

What most do not realize is the fact that the fleur de lis is much more than a football team's logo... it is a symbol representative of New Orleans French heritage and culture... included in the architecture of new orleans, fleur de lis can be found on mailboxes, fence posts, and tips of flag poles... Here is a link to the Official Flag of the City of New Orleans which was named by the city council in 1918
Maybe the nfl should be paying "royalties" to France....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_Orleans,_...

If this is the case, Then EVERY FAN that paints the COLORS of the New Orleans Saints on their faces, etc, and has a photograph taken should be in violation.
Shouldnt Tom Benson - who is the actual OWNER of the New Orleans Saints have a say in this???

This is kind of nutty, but apparently people in this town need a little education on common business sense.

To address the first portion of your comment: Your assessment is wrong. She was SELLING their mark, in turn profiting from it. THAT is what they were jumping her case about. If one of those fans that you are referring to were to go and SELL their photo, whilst wearing a trademark, then yes, the NFL would go after them as well.

Part Two: The owner of the Saints has already said his peace. He signed the deal with the NFL. He has no choice, nor should he.

It's simple. Run your business like a business, not like a hobby. Way to many NOLApreneurs are trying to skate by on a whim.

Not quite the gentleman you were earlier referred to as, are you?

"...but apparently people in this town need a little education on common business sense."

When educating, a bit less condescending tone may be more effective.

Business Guy, I think the best advice that can be given is to consult a lawyer. And not just any lawyer, someone who can layout the pro's and con's of complying with the letter that they were sent so you can make the best decision FOR your business.

First thing to note is that this is simply a threat, nothing more - nothing less. Given that the NFL is a big organization, it might feel like a bigger threat, but they are still just words. For the NFL to actually take the time to do anything more than draft a cease & desist letter (meaning to take the shop owner to court) over a few hundred dollars a year would be a complete waste of their lawyer's time. But hey, they are free to waste their own money I suppose. I'd simply chalk this up to an intimidation tactic, mafioso style- plain and simple.

A couple of things I'd like to point out though.. First, you make the assumption that she was selling "THEIR mark". No where did they actually mention which trademark they were in violation of (by id and/or registration number), and in addition, they quoted case law that may not have any bearing on the actual purported violation at hand. Furthermore, the Patent & Trademark office has done a phenomenal job of invalidating it's work over the past twenty years. Perhaps they are overwhelmed with the amount of registrations each year, but in general, they are not doing enough to actually research each registration that comes in. I'd venture to say that more than 80-90% of registrations should be rejected (google for "swinging on a swing sideways"). Patents and Trademarks don't mean a thing until they are tested in court... much like any contract for that matter.

Secondly, your assertion about the photo of someone wearing the mark treads closely on "Fair Use", which also is a nice grey area that lawyers like to litigate around. Point being, none of this is black and white as you'd think.

If it were me, I'd keep on sell them as I truly enjoy these types of fights and I would believe I am in the right. The NFL is currently being sued in a federal anti-trust lawsuit to determine the scope of the NFLP's reach, so that should tell you something. In addition, "WHODAT" as a single word, has a well documented history beyond any trademark registration they have filed.

The thing to keep in mind as a business owner in America is this: litigation is one the most lucrative business models of the century, and right behind it: the threat of litigation.

I agree...use of "who dat" can be traced back to the 1970s, and it has no connection to the Saints. The phrase was used by local high school teams who had entered playoffs for state championships. Since when can the NFL take a catch phrase made by fans and turn it in to monetary gain for the leagues profit?

WOW , WHAT HAPPENED TO FREE ENTERPRISE, I AM SO DISGUSTED WITH THE NFL FOR DOING THIS. DO YOU GUYS NOT MAKE ENOUGH MONEY ON YOUR RIDICULOUS PRICED FOOTBALL TICKETS, MY GOD WHAT YOU PAY YOUR PLAYERS IS A SIN, FOR GODS SAKE A DOCTOR WHO SAVES LIVES AND SCIENTISTS WHO ALSO SAVE LIVES MAKE NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT YOU PAY THE PLAYERS, AND YOU GO AND PICK ON THIS YOUNG WOMAN WHO IS JUST TRYING TO MAKE A DECENT LIVING!!!!
SHAME, SHAME ON ALL OF YOU. LAUREN I HOPE THIS DOES NOT DAMPEN YOUR
SPIRITS, I HAVE BEEN A FAITHFUL & LOYAL CUSTOMER AND FRIEND , AND I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT YOU. GOD BLESS YOU AND GIVE YOU STRENGTH.
BEST WISHES KATHLEEN GHIRALDI, SPRING HILL FL.

Free Enterprise does NOT mean take a trademark and use it as you see fit. It costs thousands of dollars to research, develop, and Trademark a product. If the young woman had trademarked an idea and the NFL took it, then she's have every lawyer in town nipping at their heels for compensation.

While I hope that spirits are not dampened either, I do believe in the market and its laws. According to Trade agreements, a registered mark will only remain valid as long as it is being policed. In other words, no squatting.

The NFL can not possibly own the words "WHO DAT" or the Fleur de lis! The former has been around for decades as a cheer, and the latter probably for centuries. They are just a bunch of corporate greedy monsters.

You are totally right, but her shirt clearly does not state anything Saints, nor does it show the Saints Fleur de lis design that the Saints shirts have, but who care, she is a
small business owner who's tring to make a living can't they just give her a break. As i said
earlier her little profits surely can not hurt the big boys pocketbooks. I may only be a lay person but we have a say also.

Kathleen: I did a trademark search and there are no less than 10 marks granted for JUST the word(s) "whodat". No one can own the trade right to "Who is that" or "Who's that" because they fall under common use of the English language. But, because "WHODAT" is not a word, it CAN be registered. That is what they are going after.

I agree with you that a little shop selling a handful of shirts here and there may not be detrimental to the NFL, but what if hundreds or even thousands of people thought the same way?

Here is the scoop from the NFL: There is a 37 page application that a company must submit to even think about using an NFL mark for profit. You must retain 6 million in insurance per product, and at least 12 million in aggregate coverage. Royalties of 100,000 are the minimum... and are to paid yearly. In advance by the way.

Just in case anyone else was interested...

Actually...there are only 2 REGISTERED marks containing "who dat." ("WHO DAT? BLUES BAND" and "BAYOU ON THE BEACH WHO DAT?"). All the other marks are either abandoned or pending (e.g. filed but not registered).

thanks for the info business guy, i am not trying to be a smart alec, but i just feel bad for the little business owners, its hard enough these days to make a living, now she has to give money to a huge corporation that probably won't even notice the mere pitence they will recieve from her sales, so go ahead big corporation take your money and enjoy it.
Nusiness Guy, its been a pleasure debating with you, you are a true gentlemen, most guys would have gotten rude, but you held it together as a gentleman should. Have a great week and "GEAUX SAINTS", I hold no grudges!!!!!! LET THE SAINTS COME MARCHING IN< TO THE SUPER BOWL!!!!!!!!

It too has been a refreshing pleasure. :-) Hopefully this minor debate has enlightened some.

Glad I got mine a couple days ago!! Greedy Bastards!!

In order to sell the shirts she should have to go through the process of getting a license, paying all required fees, plus the additional 10% royalty fee for each shirt sold. That's only right. Other business owners who sell licensed apparel had to go through all of these things, why shouldn't she?

I TOTALLY agree with Ashley. She is making herself out to be a martyr. If she was conducting business legally it wouldn't be a problem. BOOHOO!

Sooooo, I have to get a license to say ‘Who Dat'?

Easy solution, get the license to sell them.