'Gooner' trademark ?!

LOL how did you hunt this down?!

 

Ugh. I think fans should write in opposition to this move. It's always been an unofficial term created by the fans and now the business side of the club is trying to absorb one of the few non-commercial aspects of Arsenal fandom left.

 

my sentiments are the following, which was posted in the link to Arseblog above...

 

Dan,
I highly doubt the club is applying for rights to the term 'Gooner' for anything other than having complete control over its use and the leverage to take legal action on any use they don't approve of (which would probably be every instance of it). The key point is that the club didn't create the term; the supporters did. We can call each other Gooners, but if a Spudz fans calls one of us that, it's fighting words.

It's nothing but a grab at one of the last remaining elements of ownership by supporters. They probably won't produce a stitch of clothing or souvenirs with the term, but they can now theoretically have anyone who does shut down or possibly even have quality fan publications like The Gooner stifled.

 

i don't think the club having a copyright or trademark on the term "Gooner" is going to stop people from printing the term on t-shirts/other memorabilia and selling it.

edit: i read on Arseblog that they can't shut down The Gooners, since the trademark doesn't apply to magazines or something (can someone familiar with UK copyright/trademark law confirm this?)

 

I think its more a case of, they didn't apply to use it in a magazine format, only in the cases they specified on their application.

 

gotcha, that makes more sense

 

I don't have time to read the application, but does this mean that the t-shirt vendors and all that outside the grounds won't be able to print stuff with "gooner" on it? If so, then this is an unfortunate move by the club and will indeed "corporatize" the support of the club.

 

Precisely my point. Acquiring the trademark will allow them to police a term that they didn't create. You don't build a brand in spite of the people who give it value.

 

there was a court case a few years back between Arsenal and a tshrit vendor who was selling shirts that had Arsenal on them. the European Court of Justice ruled in the tshirt vendors favor.

 

I don't think it'll get approved, but what a shiasty move by the club.

 

I can see a "Red Sox Nation"esque "Gooner World" or something. Kinda a way to cash in on the fandom with an official card or something. Personally I dont have a problem with it.

 

I'm with you guys on this. It seems a bit of a power grab and isn't necessary. The club should concentrate on better fan relations rather than trying to take their identity.

 

I personally doubt this will have any real impact on anything for the club or fans, if the TM is even granted. My opinion is that the club doesn't want to find themselves with a similar TM issue as we had with the old club crest not being trademarked (a crest I still prefer to the newer, trademarked one used today). So why not go ahead an try to protect something closely tied to the club? The board has the fan's interest in mind on most/all major decisions, so I don't see any reason for that to change.

 

What are you smoking and where can i get some?

The Board has the interests of Arsenal, PLC in mind. Don't confuse heart-based loyalty with wallet-based loyalty. The latter is malleable.

 

You're havin' a laff, right?

 

well, I'm traveling for work this week and didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn last night - maybe that has something to do with it.

I understand the way my point went across, and to a degree I think it's valid. At the core, really ALL sports teams have the owner's intersest at heart - they want to make money (unless you're RA, but he says he wants to turn a profit at some point - we'll see about that...). But in comparison to the vast majority of other clubs around the world, my view of things show we really have it pretty good from the current ownership - despite the acknowledged warts.

Does that distinction make sense?

 

The term 'Gooner' was first used by Arsenal hooligans in the early 80's,and I remember the club condemning the name and the people who used it on Thames news or something like that.Do they want to associate themselves with it now there's a few quid involved in it..Wankers

 

The distinction would make sense if it were true. I think a lot of fans feel the club has taken them for granted over the years.

 

If that's the case, then I plead ignorance. I've been a supporter of Arsenal since '89 when I was in high school (loved Rocastle, Merson, Winterburn, Adams, Keown, et. al), but was unable to follow the club closely/intimately here in the US until I found the BS boards. By then, I guess the club was treating supporters relatively "well."

Hopefully this explains where I'm coming from - and I don't mind being called out if I'm dead wrong.

 

I am in two minds over this, merchandise sold by the stall traders outside of the ground do not go back into the club at all though i dont want to include fanzines in that.

But I also feel that Gooner cant really be claimed by the club, it is something that has come about because of banter between the spuds fans and ours.

 

People say why? I say why not?

Chelsea has registered Chelski, Man Utd Red Devils and Red Army and I think Liverpool has the kop, Celtic the Bhoys and RM the Glacticos. It makes sense to You guys forget that the Club is also a business. I don't think they are bothered about the magazine..

 

Yes but the term Gooner was something made by the fans. Chelski was made by a newspaper, Red Devils was the nickname of Man U anyway given by the club, The Kop is something that has resonated around liverpool for years...you get the point. None of the above you mentioned were made by the fans.

Besides, if its a "business" and it should be expected, why now? Why not when the term first became popular? There's plenty of stuff in the club shop with Gooner on at this exact moment.