Interesting Tweet From The VooDoo (Possibly But Probably Not Hornets Related)

[AD23forMVP]

I'm surprised the Voodoo still exist.

[42]

When Benson folded the Voodoo, the stuff stayed with the AFL.

Or those wondering why there would have to have financial talks about having the same identity as another sports franchise, I ask you to ponder why all teams are not called Lakers, consider whylat damage would happen to you if the ehole world had your name, height, weight, and more, and how you would react if something you owned was freely used by anyone in the world.

[BP225]

C) The "brand confusion" between Voodoo basketball and arena football in our market would be a non-issue. NBA trumps AFL every day of the week and twice on Sunday..

The US PTO has different industry classifications that you designate for protection in when you register a trademark, so you can have the same name in different industries like Apple Computer and Apple Bank. I don't know how they classify the NBA and AFL, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are in the same broad classification like Pro Sports or maybe even Entertainment.

[Eman5805]

Are you reeeeeeeeady?~~~

[new city champ]

VooDoo isn't as good as the Jazz...but it's close. Strongly identified with the city (not the state), literally a name no other franchise could begin to adopt (though I would have said the same thing about the Jazz), and the marketing possibilities are fantastic. Great name for the franchise, while Pelicans is only meh. Not horrible, but meh. Go big, Benson!

[LoCo89]

Are you reeeeeeeeady?~~~

This has been stuck in my head since someone mentioned Shadowman

[Teal Lantern]

Are you reeeeeeeeady?~~~

BONESAW IS READY!!! Oh yeah!!

[Eman5805]

BONESAW IS READY!!! Oh yeah!!

...to die?





Too soon?

[LetsGeauxPels]

This is what I don't understand...

According the the LA Sec of State Corporations database the New Orleans Voodoo Football, Inc. business corp is currently active, last report filed 3/2012, AND belongs to Tom Benson!

Also, the trade name "New Orleans Voodoo Football, Inc." expired in June of this year and is currently inactive (available for the taking?), AND was in the name of Tom Benson!

So how can he NOT use it? I'm assuming some contractual issue with the AFL?

[42]

The SoS site gives info about corporation names, but not about their logos.

42 Widgets, LLC can operated Ponchy Has No Strawberry Fields Diner is it wants, even if there is a Ponchy Has No Strawberry Fields, LLC.

This is less common and corporation names often have some relation to the business, especially in one that is narrowly focused.

But the issue is the brand, the logo, etc. You just can't set up shop with the same logo, colors, symbols as a similar business.

Apple cars could come up with a logo that is different from the Apple computer logo, and that'd be cool, provided it wasn't too similar (to be decided by bureaucrats or courts. Clearly, you can have Giants, Cardinals, Panthers, etc. with common names, but the logos etc. have to remain distinct enough to avoid affecting commerce.

See here for a suit (tossed out) brought against the Bucs by the Raiders: http://tam.scout.com/2/106517.html

Sure, it didn't result in penalties, etc., but the this is the kind of thing that is at issue.

[LetsGeauxPels]

The SoS site gives info about corporation names, but not about their logos.

42 Widgets, LLC can operated Ponchy Has No Strawberry Fields Diner is it wants, even if there is a Ponchy Has No Strawberry Fields, LLC.

This is less common and corporation names often have some relation to the business, especially in one that is narrowly focused.

But the issue is the brand, the logo, etc. You just can't set up shop with the same logo, colors, symbols as a similar business.

Apple cars could come up with a logo that is different from the Apple computer logo, and that'd be cool, provided it wasn't too similar (to be decided by bureaucrats or courts. Clearly, you can have Giants, Cardinals, Panthers, etc. with common names, but the logos etc. have to remain distinct enough to avoid affecting commerce.

See here for a suit (tossed out) brought against the Bucs by the Raiders: http://tam.scout.com/2/106517.html

Sure, it didn't result in penalties, etc., but the this is the kind of thing that is at issue.

Ahhh, that is what I was looking for, thanks. So it's the logo and "visual" representation at issue here... got it.

[Primetime]

The SoS site gives info about corporation names, but not about their logos.

42 Widgets, LLC can operated Ponchy Has No Strawberry Fields Diner is it wants, even if there is a Ponchy Has No Strawberry Fields, LLC.

This is less common and corporation names often have some relation to the business, especially in one that is narrowly focused.

But the issue is the brand, the logo, etc. You just can't set up shop with the same logo, colors, symbols as a similar business.

Apple cars could come up with a logo that is different from the Apple computer logo, and that'd be cool, provided it wasn't too similar (to be decided by bureaucrats or courts. Clearly, you can have Giants, Cardinals, Panthers, etc. with common names, but the logos etc. have to remain distinct enough to avoid affecting commerce.

See here for a suit (tossed out) brought against the Bucs by the Raiders: http://tam.scout.com/2/106517.html

Sure, it didn't result in penalties, etc., but the this is the kind of thing that is at issue.

I think I'm following, but want to make sure: Benson may be able to go with Voodoo as long as the logo, colors, and the brand differentiates itself from the AFL Voodoo?

[WisconsinHornet]

See here for a suit (tossed out) brought against the Bucs by the Raiders: http://tam.scout.com/2/106517.html

Sure, it didn't result in penalties, etc., but the this is the kind of thing that is at issue.

It seems like sucky timing in general. The AFL probably won't make it another 2 seasons and yet that's too long of a window for us to get their name. And now that their owner knows that the Voodoo name is desirable, he'll probably have it on lockdown (even sans an operating franchise) as Benson did with "Pelicans".

[42]

To those above: yes, it's about the logo since the AFL team not use it's stuff in basketball. The SoS stuff provides clues, and they can get linked to marks, which is helpful, but the real deal are trade marked images and logos.

It's pretty complicated stuff, and you don't have to register a trademark for it to have effect, making it even more of a mushy subject.

About the time: Yes. Very much, but it's not just that. Defunct franchises can still be thorny. See: Spirits of St. Louis and let your jaw drop.

[Purple Haze]

This stuff is interesting. Never realized that you could use a same team name even in the same city.

[42]

Both NFL and MLB Cardinals were in St. Louis up until the late 80's, for instance.

ETA: Let's not get too nuts on what we call interesting . . . this is a sign of us talking about stuff that is WAY in the weeds, yeah? It's one thing for a dork like me to look up trademark law and history of franchise . . .