Fair enough. And I should be clear...my statement is that sporting culture in the US at least, has endured cheating, high costs, bad policy, bad officiating, strikes, lockouts, and terrible fan interaction. And they still show up. The only proven loser is the loss of belief in having a competitive team or no hope. As I said I just don't believe stuff like this will linger in the minds of fans once the ball is kicked. I could be wrong of course.
And if I were to advise the SG I would say get a transferable license for the trademark when that meeting occurs....or dispute the application.
Its really sad to see that the supporters groups have to spend a bunch of money to defend their intellectual property rights. The press release does, however, explain why it was so long until there was a public statement from the groups. They wanted to put in their application for the US trademark before making their intentions clear.
And I can understand why for brand management purposes the league may want control of the term. Better from the league's perspective to have control of the IP. But not worth picking a fight over. Trying to sneak it past makes sense with the understanding you dont intend to really fight a SG for it. Regardless of the intent though the best move for the league is to beat a hasty retreat on this and let the supporters groups claim the trademark.
Fixed your post. This whole episode is going to give MLS a big black eye, however the legal tussle turns out.
Well they've already managed to piss off the SGs for Houston and DC last year so why not move on and try to piss off the rest? Makes sense. #RememberDC700
Meaning the other fan cups involved? I don't see how they could avoid discussing all of them at the same time.
Because the one in the PNW "matters" in that it is more vocal (and larger audience) than say in Texas or the Mountains. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if they only addressed the PNW problem.
But how is the Cascadia Cup in any different of a situation than these other rivalry cups? They made the same moves on them, at the same time, with the same motives... Unless they say they'll reverse their attempts to copyright just the CC (highly unlikely), then what goes for this one will pretty much be the exact guideline, purpose, and end result as with the others?
With the exception of the RMC, all the others are league-made (I think). As for not addressing it, they would just assume that it isn't a problem and leave it at that.
I can't speak for the histories of the other cups but I presume the competition and the physical cup itself predating any of the 3 cities joining the league would be one fairly substantial difference?
Brimstone Cup is fan-based as well, not sure about the Trillum Cup. But otherwise, this describes my concerns of them only addressing the Cascadia Cup. Since so far the Cascadia SG's are the only ones to make a public comment I'm afraid Garber will feel he only needs to address the Cascadia issue, hoping that there moves elsewhere will pass by unnoticed.
Well, to be fair, that question was asked that way specifically by a PNW fan... if a Utaboy had posted that, then he may have only responded regarding the RMC.
Trillium Cup is MLS FO driven. I can't speak for Columbus supporters, but other than mild distaste for each other, nobody really cares about the Trillium Cup.
The more I read it, the more MLS's response here sounds like a kid caught with their hand in the cookie jar. "I was getting it for you!" If MLS was really concerned with protecting the Cascadia Cup, they would have contacted the supporters groups BEFORE attempting to trademark it behind their backs. I guess MLS was just too afraid that the supporters groups would try to block them. I really hope things work out well for all SGs who try to oppose MLS trademarking supporter created rivalry cups.
If MLS was truly only trademarking these names just to protect them from outside use, surely they'll accept to transfer ownership of the copyrights to the Cascadia Cup Council and its equivalents for other cups, and ask permission (perhaps paying a nominal fee, like enough to cover away SG travel costs) to use the names.
I've been told C10 is working on their own response to the Rocky Mountain Cup trademark application. Maybe somebody from the Cascadia group and somebody from the RMC group should talk to see if the groups could work together? I'd be happy to facilitate communication since many of the C10 members aren't BigSoccer regulars.
Doing searches for "Rocky Mountain Cup" leads to some interesting things, youth soccer tournaments older then the MLS version, www.rockymountaincup.com being squatted on, a lacrosse tournament and various swimming events.
Why did the Sounders cease to exist and MLS started Sounders FC? Because the owners did not protect the copyright and anybody can sell Sounders gear and not pay any royalty's, as oppose to the Cosmos and Vancouver Whitecaps who went after anybody that infringed on their copyrights. MLS could tweak the name of the Cup like they did with Sounders FC and copyright it. The Hunts copyrighted "The Nordecke" and that was created right here on Bigsoccer, you snooze you lose.