chiwigi
I’ll make tears from your Wines.
Which leaves us the exact same spot, the court of public opinion.
Opinion The PB's - a celebration of 150 years. This year or later?
- Thread starter Magus
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Which leaves us the exact same spot, the court of public opinion.
DaTBird187
What D Farke?
- Feb 9, 2014
- 17,396
- 46,995
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Liverpool, Boston Celtics
Koch needs to keep pushing now. Call Eddie's bluff and tell a journo we'll happily take it to court, and as Ed isn't being reasonable, we'll now be expecting to win and wear it for all home games.
The objective can still be to get permission from the AFL to always wear it for showdowns. But go hard in the media to show we' re serious and force the AFL to step in to allow that as a compromise.
The objective can still be to get permission from the AFL to always wear it for showdowns. But go hard in the media to show we' re serious and force the AFL to step in to allow that as a compromise.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 10,991
- 14,204
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Wear it every year in honour of previous premiership teams.
chiwigi
I’ll make tears from your Wines.
People who threaten court because they have more money, usually don’t have a leg to stand on.
Eddie has learned a few tricks from the US.
Eddie has learned a few tricks from the US.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
It's restraint of trade, pure and simple.
The AFL has acknowledged that Port Adelaide in the AFL is the same club from the SANFL, therefore they also acknowledge that the PBs are a significant icon from our rich history.
To deny us the opportunity to wear such an important symbol of our club to celebrate our history, to unite our supporters, and to derive revenue from merchandise, on the flimsy pretext that Collingwood "own black and white" is a clear restraint of trade. Particularly, since one party, Collingwood, isn't actually making any compensation.
Additionally, some points of clarification:
1. The only trademark that would be relevant is the Collingwood logo. The guernsey is not a trademark.
2. "Black and white" cannot be owned in a legal sense.
3. The legal argument from a rights infringement point of view, in my opinion, would come down to two points:
— the visual difference between the PBs and the current Collingwood guernsey (hence why CW changed from B on W, to W on B around 2000)
— whether Port selling PB merch would erode CW merch sales (which is clearly a ridiculous premise)
However, all of this is academic, as the AFL makes the call and if they side with the guy that brings in $$$$$$$ for the AFL, the only thing we have remaining is being belligerent and submitting the PBs each and every year to force them to refuse each and every year, and making a press release each time they do.
The AFL has acknowledged that Port Adelaide in the AFL is the same club from the SANFL, therefore they also acknowledge that the PBs are a significant icon from our rich history.
To deny us the opportunity to wear such an important symbol of our club to celebrate our history, to unite our supporters, and to derive revenue from merchandise, on the flimsy pretext that Collingwood "own black and white" is a clear restraint of trade. Particularly, since one party, Collingwood, isn't actually making any compensation.
Additionally, some points of clarification:
1. The only trademark that would be relevant is the Collingwood logo. The guernsey is not a trademark.
2. "Black and white" cannot be owned in a legal sense.
3. The legal argument from a rights infringement point of view, in my opinion, would come down to two points:
— the visual difference between the PBs and the current Collingwood guernsey (hence why CW changed from B on W, to W on B around 2000)
— whether Port selling PB merch would erode CW merch sales (which is clearly a ridiculous premise)
However, all of this is academic, as the AFL makes the call and if they side with the guy that brings in $$$$$$$ for the AFL, the only thing we have remaining is being belligerent and submitting the PBs each and every year to force them to refuse each and every year, and making a press release each time they do.
Kochie should just laugh in his face, give him a clean dummy and say "here you are Ed, these tantrums your throwing aren't doing your blood pressure any good
when your all grown up and out of the dummy stage this'll all seem like a bad dream, a storm in a tea cup so to speak that was none of your business anyway.
We're worried about you moite just like you were worried about our SANFL magpies and to show there's no ill feelings we've got a fluffy new Teddy for Eddie
Now it's bye bye's time darling there's a good boy.......... we'll even leave the light on for you tonight.
Oh and before I forget GAGF'd
I don't get Eddie's refusal.
Allowing us to wear our own guernsey creates another element of rivalry, of fan engagement, interest in matches between the two clubs, generates revenue, media attention etc.
He has been banging on about the health of football since Covid hit, good health is only important when it involves Collingwood.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Allowing us to wear our own guernsey creates another element of rivalry, of fan engagement, interest in matches between the two clubs, generates revenue, media attention etc.
He has been banging on about the health of football since Covid hit, good health is only important when it involves Collingwood.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Are we sure about this? I remember Cadbury trademarked the use of the colour purple, which was highly contentious at the time.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
chiwigi
I’ll make tears from your Wines.
That was for specific bars and has ultimately failed.
We have over a hundred years of using the colours, including on our current guernsey. that has zero chance.
bomberclifford
Importer/Exporter
They didn't trademark "purple", they trademarked a specific colour formulation of purple. It was also a very tough process for them to go through.
Now try and apply that thinking to "black and white". White is literally no colour, (or all colours, for the physicists) so that's not trademarkable. And black is used by five different AFL clubs, including us, who also use white in conjunction with teal. It's also just black. There's no shades of black that aren't a different colour.
Our PB guernsey fits elegantly within our full visual identity, it's entirely within keeping of our club's AFL brand.
Eddie's response had all the backbone of empty bluster and the substance of cappuccino froth.
It was also to try and stop other makers of bars trying to pass themselves off as Cadbury. Trying to stretch an already contentious ploy would require Collingwood to say us wearing the PB's is trying to pass ourselves off as Collingwood to people for financial gain. That's even more laughable then Collingwood trying to copyright Black & White to begin with.
Call Eddie out on the documentation of the “agreement”. We need to see its terms and conditions before we can have any informed view on whether it is binding or not.
Tell Eddie to put up or shut up.
His outrage every time this issue is raised displays an insecurity about his own club identity. If Collingwood were secure about their identity they wouldn’t care about the occasional wearing of a jumper that is distinctively different from their own.
Tell Eddie to put up or shut up.
His outrage every time this issue is raised displays an insecurity about his own club identity. If Collingwood were secure about their identity they wouldn’t care about the occasional wearing of a jumper that is distinctively different from their own.
- Nov 6, 2014
- 65,247
- 83,138
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
****ing moron, most protected species in the AFL.
No one owns colours surely, otherwise how do Geelong Kangas and Blues all wear blue and white?
It’s time the AFL grew a pair and stopped cow towing to this self entitled p***k.
No one owns colours surely, otherwise how do Geelong Kangas and Blues all wear blue and white?
It’s time the AFL grew a pair and stopped cow towing to this self entitled p***k.
Alex09
Senior List
- May 15, 2020
- 287
- 624
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
The thing i find the most comical from Eddie is that he claims a binding handshake agreement on the terms in perpetuity re Port Adelaide with someone who is also under his employ. That would be laughed out of court.
So Eddie's an expert on
Trademarks and Commercial Law
Aboriginal Culture & History
Disabled People Respect and Rights
anything else ?
Trademarks and Commercial Law
Aboriginal Culture & History
Disabled People Respect and Rights
anything else ?
Alex09
Senior List
- May 15, 2020
- 287
- 624
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
New AC/DC music
Doctor Feel
Shitposter In Chief
Let's go to court then yeah?
Depends if the Admin at PAFC think it's actually something to warrant doesn't it....
We need a benefactor with some cash to support it.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 3,605
- 6,530
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Honestly that Eddie clip was fantastic, exactly the line of inquiry we need Eddie to try and justify publicly.
Caro was brilliant, imagine if she had some more facts about the "contracts" that Eddie kept blubbering about. To my mind the only evidence of any kind of contract is that 2007 bullshit, predicated on the existence of Heritage Rounds in the first place. The fact that the whole concept went down the drain the very next year is even more damning. If Eddie actually had to explain that that is the ground he's standing on, he'd be absolutely fricasseed.
Only problem is the big bigot would barely let her get a word in. It's disgraceful how many times Caro is forced to calmly back off a legitimate point because the boys club i.e. McClure, Lloyd, McGuire, Tony Jones etc. hound her down.
Kane Cornes would be all over this too, and he's got the campaigner in him to nail Eddie down, but I'd be concerned that his opinion could do more harm than good-- he's deliberately styled himself as a devil's advocate/potstirrer that Victorians love to hate.
Is there another prominent media figure that we could present the facts as we know them to and trust them to shove them right in Eddie's face? AFL media is such a wasteland of ex-player hacks (usually Victorian/from a Vic club too).
Caro was brilliant, imagine if she had some more facts about the "contracts" that Eddie kept blubbering about. To my mind the only evidence of any kind of contract is that 2007 bullshit, predicated on the existence of Heritage Rounds in the first place. The fact that the whole concept went down the drain the very next year is even more damning. If Eddie actually had to explain that that is the ground he's standing on, he'd be absolutely fricasseed.
Only problem is the big bigot would barely let her get a word in. It's disgraceful how many times Caro is forced to calmly back off a legitimate point because the boys club i.e. McClure, Lloyd, McGuire, Tony Jones etc. hound her down.
Kane Cornes would be all over this too, and he's got the campaigner in him to nail Eddie down, but I'd be concerned that his opinion could do more harm than good-- he's deliberately styled himself as a devil's advocate/potstirrer that Victorians love to hate.
Is there another prominent media figure that we could present the facts as we know them to and trust them to shove them right in Eddie's face? AFL media is such a wasteland of ex-player hacks (usually Victorian/from a Vic club too).
Are you talking about the supporters, or the AFL and one Eddie appointed board members?
