They were singled out not for "Go Team Go," but because they paired that with a logo.
This isn't rocket science. People cannot use other people's intellectual property in their advertising.
well indeed your right but the logo is also an historic part of our culture... The go team go trademark is just a total direspect of the sport and his history... The Nhl must face the fact money isnt the duty of a sport ... If we cant support our team well then this sport IS A COMPLETE NONSENS! we can sue them to always put the american anthem first cuz we create this sport(sarcasm) ... Those foolish people cant see the reality and they dream to pay there dept! ... The go team go cant be trademarked to me cuz since we cheer we use that form or the Go go go team version ... There were no creation or developpement to get this form so imo its off trademark! Its not Nikee ...
After being warned of infringement the guy painted the logo out of the poster. Who cares if the NHL bills him, they need to enforce that bill by suing the guy. He can then claim he complied to their request by eliminating the logo and file a cross demand in excess of what he is being billed. The NHL has no recourse other than suing and if they do, it will escalate and do nothing but create advertising for the guy's business. It's a win-win for the guy and a scandal for the NHL if they pursue this. As far as damage to the brand or logo that is pure garbage. The more the brand is visible the more value it has. By drawing a conclusion that the logo loses value by being displayed illegally is ridiculous. It actually gains value in terms of exposure.
This is a waste of time for the NHL and shows ill will. Where did they get the figure of 89K anyway? Can they prove that they suffered damages totaling that amount? This isn't the USA where you just sue for any amount you pull out of thin air. Here, you have to suffer damages equal to what you are suing for.
After being warned of infringement the guy painted the logo out of the poster. Who cares if the NHL bills him, they need to enforce that bill by suing the guy. He can then claim he complied to their request by eliminating the logo and file a cross demand in excess of what he is being billed. The NHL has no recourse other than suing and if they do, it will escalate and do nothing but create advertising for the guy's business. It's a win-win for the guy and a scandal for the NHL if they pursue this. As far as damage to the brand or logo that is pure garbage. The more the brand is visible the more value it has. By drawing a conclusion that the logo loses value by being displayed illegally is ridiculous. It actually gains value in terms of exposure.
This is a waste of time for the NHL and shows ill will. Where did they get the figure of 89K anyway? Can they prove that they suffered damages totaling that amount? This isn't the USA where you just sue for any amount you pull out of thin air. Here, you have to suffer damages equal to what you are suing for.
Well this is why I said the laws are put in place for a reason. They aren't put in place so that any jack ass cop with an attitude can just exploit the law to **** somebody over. (Wasting the systems time and tax payers dollars, time I might add that the legal system in Montreal can't afford to waste right now) It isn't a case where the logo is being used in such a way that makes the NHL look bad or anything of the sort. They're dumb for bring light to this whole thing. They should have just requested it if they really cared and left it at that. Suing and/or fining the guy goes way too far. All he did was support his team as a local business owner.
This is either somebody being a jackass trying to get Basha in trouble, or some really bush league Montreal police ******** that I've come to expect from this joke of a police force we have in Montreal and in Quebec, in fact outside of the city they're an even bigger joke.
lol at people who are against the NHL about this and an even bigger lol to people who reason that this is advertisement for the Habs. Give me a break, as if the Habs needed Basha to advertise for them. I would be shocked if that sign even got the Habs 1 extra fan.
Copyright laws exist for a reason, you can't just make exceptions just because its the Habs. You allow it here, you have to allow it for everything else.
How would you feel if the local white supremacy group used the Habs symbol in their advertisements? What would happen if tomorrow a whole bunch of people get poisoned at Basha?
well indeed your right but the logo is also an historic part of our culture... The go team go trademark is just a total direspect of the sport and his history... The Nhl must face the fact money isnt the duty of a sport ... If we cant support our team well then this sport IS A COMPLETE NONSENS! we can sue them to always put the american anthem first cuz we create this sport(sarcasm) ... Those foolish people cant see the reality and they dream to pay there dept! ... The go team go cant be trademarked to me cuz since we cheer we use that form or the Go go go team version ... There were no creation or developpement to get this form so imo its off trademark! Its not Nikee ...
That's all nice and sentimental, but fact is, this isn't the law of the land.
And again, I don't see why people make him out to be some "happy fan" who is "just showing his support."
Not sure why people defend the guy. Obviously I hope there's a settlement but he's at fault. It's the law and not some random law. Copyrights and trademarks exist for this reason. This wasn't him being a fan. Please. Sucks to be him and hope it works out but still illegal.
How would you feel if the local white supremacy group used the Habs symbol in their advertisements?
You mean like the Chicago Blackhawks? What about the Redskins? Do you have any idea what those images represent? Its a double standard, nothing more. The lawyers always hide behind the idea that the trademark laws are there, in case the logos are used in a manner they disapprove of.
Because if they went by the letter of the law, they would be jailing thousands of kids in elementary schools for drawing images, using NHL logos without permission.
I agree the league has every right to protect its image, but I'm curious why they chose this guy rather than the big fish who make illegal jerseys etc.
You mean like the Chicago Blackhawks? What about the Redskins? Do you have any idea what those images represent? Its a double standard, nothing more. The lawyers always hide behind the idea that the trademark laws are there, in case the logos are used in a manner they disapprove of.
Because if they went by the letter of the law, they would be jailing thousands of kids in elementary schools for drawing images, using NHL logos without permission.
I agree the league has every right to protect its image, but I'm curious why they chose this guy rather than the big fish who make illegal jerseys etc.
Seems you don't quite comprehend what the matter here. It is the violation of a TRADEMARK, a legal right to use a name or image, not how "offensive" the image is. http://www.ehow.com/how-to_4845407_r...rademarks.html
Little kids drawing the CH ain't going to be sued because the signs are exact replicas and they aren't making them to advertise some business.
Funny that you should be up the Redskins, because a few months ago, the Redskins organization told the Washington Post that they could not use the Redskins name on the blog "Redskins Insider" because the name's TRADEMARK is owned by the Redskins organization.
lol at people who are against the NHL about this and an even bigger lol to people who reason that this is advertisement for the Habs. Give me a break, as if the Habs needed Basha to advertise for them. I would be shocked if that sign even got the Habs 1 extra fan.
Copyright laws exist for a reason, you can't just make exceptions just because its the Habs. You allow it here, you have to allow it for everything else.
How would you feel if the local white supremacy group used the Habs symbol in their advertisements? What would happen if tomorrow a whole bunch of people get poisoned at Basha?
And you lol at people who think this is harmless? Wow. Hey what if the bricks fell off the building onto passers-by too?
Sad world we live in when everyone is so uptight about everything and have lost the ability to question and use judgement. This is completely harmless and the comparisons you law mongers are making are absurd.
The NHL comes across as petty in this. Asking the guy to take it down (which he did immediately) is one thing, but sending him a bill? lol. PLEASE.
That's all nice and sentimental, but fact is, this isn't the law of the land.
And again, I don't see why people make him out to be some "happy fan" who is "just showing his support."
He erected a freaking billboard to sell shwarma.
your right this not a sentimental wolrd. But where its wrong its who claim the fine ... Habs logo its a habs trademark and nhl...to me Geoff Molson should had claim not Buttman and the league! Here we realize how far it went. If Molson doesnt complain about why the league has to be so irrelative and sue. I know that the league lead this sport but the team must face their area and own dilemma! The matter of money in this fine give the proof cuz all the money asked is will go to the habs fondation imo... If they keep the sue! 89k is a legit trademark value ... But you must realize that is far from the receipe that the owner get by this advertise. The league as to prove that it was against their trademark and private relation to the logo and the sport.
Seems you don't quite comprehend what the matter here. It is the violation of a TRADEMARK, a legal right to use a name or image, not how "offensive" the image is. http://www.ehow.com/how-to_4845407_r...rademarks.html
Little kids drawing the CH ain't going to be sued because the signs are exact replicas and they aren't making them to advertise some business.
Funny that you should be up the Redskins, because a few months ago, the Redskins organization told the Washington Post that they could not use the Redskins name on the blog "Redskins Insider" because the name's TRADEMARK is owned by the Redskins organization.
I'm fine with the league upholding its copyrights.. however, suing a local merchant for 89k looks really bad on them. Just looks like a cash grab and also completely unnecessary. A simple lawyer letter would have been sufficient.
I'm fine with the league upholding its copyrights.. however, suing a local merchant for 89k looks really bad on them. Just looks like a cash grab and also completely unnecessary. A simple lawyer letter would have been sufficient.
...and that's what they did.
The only sent him the bill after he left the billboard up for two more months. He covered up some things, but not all the trademarked material.
So the guy violated the rules, was warned, didn't fully comply... the only other logical step is the bill.
Just as long as the NHL drops the thing in a few days then ok.
BUT if the NHL actually wants to go to court to get that 89K, well two can play that game.
Basha calls a press conference and in front of National Press right in front of the live camera's, he drops to his knees and pleads his heart out and asks the NHL to not take his business, not force the sale of his house to pay off this dept, not force him to remove his kids from University and start eating from food banks. Trot out his wife and kids and if he has one, a real baby and pleads for his babies life. All live on TV. You want a war well you got one.
MAYBE,MAYBE NOT ... The clue is why he does that ... As he said it was to support his team and kid favorite team ... I know that sound ridiculous but I already(in the past) put a banner of the habs next to my banner at the bar and no one sue me! Everyone is hockey when the habs make the playoff so why sue a restaurant who is doing the same ... I'll sue him if next to it I can read : come at Basha as the habs [then use the trademarked logo] to get customer! Your not a thief if you do support a team but your right on the point that it's near from robbery! En francais on dit qu il est profiteur mais pas voleur.
I've always been one to side against the law but in this case its the owners fault. Companys pay a lot of money to be able to use the montreal canadiens logos in their ad's, why should this guy be able to do it for free?
I'm pretty sure he knew what he was doing and the risk he was taking by putting that ad up. It's negligence he should have checked with a lawyer. His location doesn't help either since its almost right smack in the middle of downtown.
Edit: I think some of you don't understand the difference between an owner putting up a Hags Logo in his window and the way this man incorporated into the company Logo. Big Difference
Just as long as the NHL drops the thing in a few days then ok.
BUT if the NHL actually wants to go to court to get that 89K, well two can play that game.
Basha calls a press conference and in front of National Press right in front of the live camera's, he drops to his knees and pleads his heart out and asks the NHL to not take his business, not force the sale of his house to pay off this dept, not force him to remove his kids from University and start eating from food banks. Trot out his wife and kids and if he has one, a real baby and pleads for his babies life. All live on TV. You want a war well you got one.
you got it
I hope the Canadiens brass realize this as an opportunity to stand up to the Evil Empire for one of their own.
The aggravating thing for me is the ownership of the 'Habs' name. This obviously came up a few months ago with the habsinsideout kerfuffle. It was a folkloric nicker that didn't even originate within the organization as far as I know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RC51
Basha calls a press conference and in front of National Press right in front of the live camera's, he drops to his knees and pleads his heart out and asks the NHL to not take his business, not force the sale of his house to pay off this dept, not force him to remove his kids from University and start eating from food banks. Trot out his wife and kids and if he has one, a real baby and pleads for his babies life. All live on TV. You want a war well you got one.
I'm sure you could always rent or borrow. I remember one time I was filling out an application for a secret shopper, and apparently 'Some of these shopping assignments will require one child. If you do not have a child will you be able to borrow one?'
No where in the article it says the guy received a warning by the NHL and then a bill...
That's true, however why do you think he first put the Habs logo and text and THEN masked it? He had to receive a warning of some sort, and there's very good chances that it came from people who were asking him to take it out...
The fact is the guy very likely thought that what he did was enough and he invested in the add so he didn't feel like removing it altogether, but it likely didn't satisfy the NHL.
It's so easy to take the side of the poor small restaurant owner against the evil big corporation, and that was my initial feeling too, but the more you think about it and analyze the whole situation, the more it seems like he just went too far with how he approached it. It's likely an honest mistake, and I hope that he can manage not to pay the bill and find another deal with them (and that public outing of the whole thing should hopefully suffice to prevent other people from copying what he did).
It's one thing if he just put some flags and wrote "Go Habs Go!" in chalk on his daily menu, it's another to have a 20 feet banner that associates the Habs brand directly to his product.
This city's businesses have used the Canadiens logo way too much in their advertisement. It has become a popular way to get attention. Let's all remember that the logo is the most loved logo of all businesses in the province. Studies have shown it.
Now, what gets to me is the 'Habs' stuff. The Organisation stole this from the fanbase. Some lawyer should have sued the organisation at the time.
you got it 
