Stanford and Cal Cooperate over Big Game

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Aside from the fact that Big Game is Big Game (yes, I went to Stanford, too), I don’t see how the NFL could ever get this mark anyway:

    1. It is merely descriptive, and

    2. Couldn’t have any secondary meaning, because

    3. The NFL has never used the term to describe the game in a trademarked way.

    All three are trademark registration killers.

  2. greglas says:

    I agree that even without all the ruckus, this one is going nowhere.

    I poked around looking for a lay IP-Demsetzian defender and couldn’t find one. Who knows, though, the Progress & Freedom Foundation might step up to the plate this week. :-)

    I think the problem here is that the lay blogger is going to naturally presume that trademark rights entail absolute ownership, hence if this issued, no one would be able to say “big game” in casual conversation. (See how some bloggers feign concern that they, and everyone else, are at risk of no longer being able to say “big game” if NFL gets its way.)

    The nail in the coffin for this one, from the lay perspective, is definitely the Stanford/Cal game.