"Washington Nationals" may be in jeopardy

[eddiejc1]

No, this time I am not going into my hair-tearing paranoid
rants about how MLB or the D.C. Council are going to screw things
up and take the Nats away from us. I do not mean that the franchise
is in jeopardy. But if what
I read on another blog is true the name "Washington
Nationals" may be jeopardized.

Many D.C. fans have waited several years hoping that baseball
would finally move the Expos here. One guy did more than wait.
He either trademarked the name "Washington Nationals" or the
domain of the same name. He's been selling generic T-shirts with
this name for some time now. (I remember seeing these ads on
either the Washington Times or the D.C. Examiner---can't remember
which paper, though.) He's been engaged in a trademark infringement
suit against the Nats, and according to the Beltway Guys, this guy won
a judgement against the baseball team. If it stand, it could force the
Nats to pay this guy a ransom for the rights to the name or change
the name to something like "Senators" to avoid it. I hope this isn't
true, because I have grown to like "Nationals" more and more, and I
would hate to see them give up this name, especially for a predatory
scumbag like this guy.

Eddie Cunningham

[Peorgie T]

I imagine there will be some sort of settlement. If the Nats were to change their name, his trademark would be worthless.

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

Originally Posted by eddiejc1

No, this time I am not going into my hair-tearing paranoid
rants about how MLB or the D.C. Council are going to screw things
up and take the Nats away from us. I do not mean that the franchise
is in jeopardy. But if what
I read on another blog is true the name "Washington
Nationals" may be jeopardized.

Many D.C. fans have waited several years hoping that baseball
would finally move the Expos here. One guy did more than wait.
He either trademarked the name "Washington Nationals" or the
domain of the same name. He's been selling generic T-shirts with
this name for some time now. (I remember seeing these ads on
either the Washington Times or the D.C. Examiner---can't remember
which paper, though.) He's been engaged in a trademark infringement
suit against the Nats, and according to the Beltway Guys, this guy won
a judgement against the baseball team. If it stand, it could force the
Nats to pay this guy a ransom for the rights to the name or change
the name to something like "Senators" to avoid it. I hope this isn't
true, because I have grown to like "Nationals" more and more, and I
would hate to see them give up this name, especially for a predatory
scumbag like this guy.

Eddie Cunningham

No comment. Too many painful things in there .

[eddiejc1]

Apparently, this isn't a joke.

Bygone Sports granted trademark to "Washington Nationals"

Eddie Cunningham

[runningshoes]

Founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bygone's principal market strategy is to identify, resurrect and commercialize long-abandoned, historic sports team names, placing them on sportswear, apparel, and other merchandise, and to offer them for license in connection with other applications.

And they did this two years before the Expos announced they were moving to Washington?

This doesn't look good.

[Uncle Dak]

When the Expos moved here, and named the Nationals, there was other speculation that once MLB sold the team to an owner, the owner could likely change the uniforms and the name.

[Bob Hannah]

Originally Posted by runningshoes53

And they did this two years before the Expos announced they were moving to Washington?

It was speculation on their part and they may have come up a winner. It wasn't unusual for web addresses to be registered with various names regarding a D.C. team. The owner would squat on the address in hopes it would be bought out by MLB. The firm only markets one shirt and its pretty generic.

[eddiejc1]

Although I was one of many (most?) Washington baseball fans hoping that the team would be called "Senators", I will be very disappointed if they have to change their name---even if they become "Senators" again.

Eddie Cunningham

[efin98]

Founded in 2002 and is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Bygone's principal market strategy is to identify, resurrect and commercialize long-abandoned, historic sports team names, placing them on sportswear, apparel, and other merchandise, and to offer them for license in connection with other applications.

The company isn't as sneaky or shifty as first thought.

Frankly, it's their right to do what they are doing. Anyone has the right to buy the trademark after it expires, and that company did. The only one who would be to blame would be the former owner of the trademark: the Twins organization. They probably owned the trademark and let it lapse, unknowing that this would eventually be the outcome.

*Edit: the "Washington Senators" is not available either. It's owned by someone out in Ohio. The team may be forced to either pay off the company that owns the "Washington Nationals" name or change their name to something else entirely- DC Grays anyone?

[538280]

It really wouldn't bother me so much if they changed the name Nationals. I have taken somewhat of a liking to the name but after only one year I don't think it would be a huge restart to change the name. I personally like the name Cannons. I belive there was (or maybe is) a long time minor league organization somewhere around Washington that had that name.

[Bob Hannah]

Originally Posted by 538280

It really wouldn't bother me so much if they changed the name Nationals. I have taken somewhat of a liking to the name but after only one year I don't think it would be a huge restart to change the name. I personally like the name Cannons. I belive there was (or maybe is) a long time minor league organization somewhere around Washington that had that name.

The Potomac Cannons, now the Potomac Nationals, a Nationals single A affiliate, play in Woodbridge, about 25 miles south of D.C.

[Peorgie T]

They'll settle. MLB doesn't want to suffer the expense and embarassment of changing the name, and Bygone knows that if they did change the name, they'd (in the words of Judge Smalls) get nothing and like it.

[efin98]

Originally Posted by Peorgie T

They'll settle. MLB doesn't want to suffer the expense and embarassment of changing the name, and Bygone knows that if they did change the name, they'd (in the words of Judge Smalls) get nothing and like it.

That's true. Probably a decent priced liscensing fee and exclusive rights to seel Bygone's t-shirts alongside all other Nationals memorabelia.

[Peorgie T]

Originally Posted by efin98

That's true. Probably a decent priced liscensing fee and exclusive rights to seel Bygone's t-shirts alongside all other Nationals memorabelia.

I don't think Bygone has any interest in selling t-shirts. They just want money from MLB.

[TXRangersFan]

Originally Posted by efin98

*Edit: the "Washington Senators" is not available either. It's owned by someone out in Ohio.

Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that the Rangers still owned the rights to the Senators name.

[Bob Hannah]

Originally Posted by TXRangersFan

Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that the Rangers still owned the rights to the Senators name.

The Rangers do have rights to the name "Senators", took it with them in '71.

I'm a little confused by all this. I didn't think a city's name could be trademarked.

[KingJ]

Originally Posted by Bob Hannah

I didn't think a city's name could be trademarked.

[John] Adams, DC, anybody?

[efin98]

Originally Posted by Bob Hannah

The Rangers do have rights to the name "Senators", took it with them in '71.

Last trademark, non-Rangers

Last trademark, Rangers

That's the listing for the trademarks straight from the US Patent and Trademark Office. The Rangers let the trademark lapse, so anyone could have bought the rights(now unowned).

And I believe they may own the "rights" within MLB only, beyond that they have no legal claim to the name "Washington Senators".

I'm a little confused by all this. I didn't think a city's name could be trademarked.

They can't legally use "Washington" and "Nationals" together, but oddly enough they can use "DC" and "Nationals" together. MLB DOES own that trademark, hence the use of "DC" on uniforms...

[efin98]

Originally Posted by TXRangersFan

Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that the Rangers still owned the rights to the Senators name.

I checked before I posted. US Patent and Trademark Office has it listed as being cancelled by them in 2001. It is legally up for grabs.

About the only thing regarding the name they may own is the right for a team in MLB to use it. Beyond that, they don't own a thing about it anymore.

[Bob Hannah]

Originally Posted by efin98

Last trademark, non-Rangers

Last trademark, Rangers

Not sure how to use the links you gave. I refreshed the page and plugged in "Senators" on the search. It gave a list, including Washinton Senators. Apparently someone tried to pick up the name but abandoned the claim in 2004.

Let me know how to get to the information stating the Rangers let it lapse.

I just find it extremely unusual that the name has been available since 2001 and no one has claimed it. Seems around here we would have that knowledge since Senators was the name of choice in these parts. Funny I've never heard this before.

[efin98]

Originally Posted by Bob Hannah

Not sure how to use the links you gave. I refreshed the page and plugged in "Senators" on the search. It gave a list, including Washinton Senators. Apparently someone tried to pick up the name but abandoned the claim in 2004.

Let me know how to get to the information stating the Rangers let it lapse.

I just find it extremely unusual that the name has been available since 2001 and no one has claimed it. Seems around here we would have that knowledge since Senators was the name of choice in these parts. Funny I've never heard this before.

My mistake, I linked while another window was open so only I was able to see the link.

If you look at the listings showing registration numbers, those are the ones I am talking about. Those are the ones the Rangers let lapse.

[eddiejc1]

Now WTOP is breaking the story...

Eddie Cunningham

[eddiejc1]

Now it's in the Post

MLB explicitly says that they will change the name if they lose the lawsuit. If they do (and I hope they don't), I think the name they should pick should be "Senators." Sorry, Tony Williams, but you and Mark Plotkin are literally the ONLY baseball fans offended by the name "Washington Senators." Every other die-hard voting rights advocate in the District are fighting to kill baseball in D.C., and I see no reason to make THEM feel any better.

Of course, if the lease is not approved, this all becomes a moot point, and my hopes that this will get approved eventually sink lower and lower as we approach March 6th. Is it just me, or does it seem that the real reason baseball has refused to name an owner is because they already decided it would be Smullyan and they know the bleep would hit the fan the moment his name was announced, so they want to make sure this is a done deal first? It would also explain why they are concerned about the lease revisions because unlike local groups headed by Malek, Lerner, and Ledowski, Smullyan is not using his own money and he isn't in a position to pay for cost overruns if it comes down to that.

Eddie Cunningham

[wilkerson_rulz-06]

The team without a home or owner might also not have a name.


According to a report in The New York Times on Tuesday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a request for federal trademark registration on the name Washington Nationals to Bygone Sports last week. The Cincinnati-based company, which specializes in historic trademarks and sports apparel, applied for the trademark in September 2002.


According to the Times, Major League Baseball, aware of Bygone Sports' claim to the Washington Nationals name, thought it had reached an agreement with the company for the name's rights when the franchise was moved from Montreal in 2004.


"We believe we own the name and the rights," John McHale Jr., a baseball executive vice president, told the Times. "We struck a deal prior to the announcement with the people who claimed they owned the name, and we've been fighting to get that agreement enforced. They didn't live up to the agreement."


However, Roger Kaplan, an attorney for Bygone Sports, told the Times that although baseball contends an oral agreement was reached Nov. 12, 2004 -- 10 days before the team was renamed -- the sides had actually only reached a preliminary agreement.


"All the terms and conditions had not been fully discussed," he said.


Kaplan also contends that baseball and Bygone Sports had not put the agreement in writing and had agreed not to be bound by an agreement until it was in writing.


Both baseball and Bygone Sports sued, and the case landed in federal court, where it will be determined if there is an enforceable agreement. If the lawsuit goes forward, a trial is scheduled to begin April 3 -- the day the Nationals open their second season in Washington.


Neither baseball nor Bygone Sports dispute that the company raised its asking price for the rights from $130,000 to $1.5 million. Bygone Sports also asked for four tickets to the Nationals' opener last season and a $10,000 advertising credit on MLB.com.


"For two weeks after the team was named, Bygone was prepared to move forward on the original amount," Kaplan told the Times.


But negotiations collapsed, and both sides filed suit.


Baseball sued in June, claiming that although Bygone Sports had applied for the rights two years prior to the team's move, the company wanted to "turn a quick, undeserved profit" by seeking trademark registration rights. In its countersuit in July, Bygone Sports accused baseball of not researching the name to know that someone else had claimed it.


If the case proceeds and the judge rules for Bygone Sports, baseball would then have to decide whether to rename the team, because it would not be able to sell apparel and other paraphernalia with the Nationals name on it.


"You wouldn't be able to go to the ballpark and buy a shirt or cap with the team name on it," Kaplan told the Times.


"I think it's likely that we would change if we're not correct," McHale told the Times.
ESPN

[eddiejc1]

This article does mention that Bygone tried to trademark "Washington Senators" but couldn't because the Texas Rangers hold the rights. If MLB loses in court, I think that is what they will change the name to. The Rangers will get some sort of compensation, but I don't see the owner pulling a hissy fit the way Peter Angelos did. Besides, a former Rangers owner is in the White House (and his politcal career was financed by the sale of the team, whose value grew considerably after what is now known as Ameriquest Field opened) and I think that guy has some clout with the team...

Eddie Cunningham