"Real USFL" sues new USFL

[MGB01]

Oh if you'd have been here last June when we covered this, you'd have seen (and btw you still can):

A) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... fox-reboot

AND

B)

But by all means, please follow the "real USFL" and the impassioned pleas about loyalty of the guy who killed the Dolphins' dynasty by signing with the World League.

[johnnyangryfuzzball]

Ehrhart said that the league retained the rights to the USFL name after the ’86 legal battle with the NFL. He said league officials also licensed the rights to the team logos and still even get a royalty check every month.

“It’s not a big check, but we have a bank account in the USFL name,” he said. “So, we’ve been in continuous use for nearly 40 years. So they would need to sit down and talk with us. We’d be open to doing that.”

The league didn't exist after 1990, so there's no way that they could have retained the trademarks unless a holding company was set up to maintain the intellectual property rights or they were sold off to another entity (the latter of which Ehrhart denies). "The Real USFL, LLC" did not exist until 2022 and thus cannot possibly have retained the properties Ehrhart claims.

Again, the USPTO records prove that Ehrhart and Csonka are either wrong or lying.

Stephan Rachuk discusses the fact that Brian Woods, through TSL, registered the trademarks through the USPTO, which recognizes TSL as the lawful owner of them:
https://xflnewsroom.com/news/based-on-t ... n-in-2022/

Under the Lanham Act, trademarks have to be actively maintained in order to remain active (in contrast to copyright, which is for more complex works of art and stay under copyright for over a century under current laws). If the league ceased operations in 1990, the trademarks would expire. Team trademarks might have been kept active in the hands of the original owners at the time, but neither Csonka's Jacksonville Bulls nor Ehrhart's Memphis Showboats are being used—ergo, no standing to sue.

And besides... let's say Ehrhart did keep the USFL trademark under his person (which, as MGB01 has shown, the USPTO says he didn't, but let's indulge). What's the worst-case scenario? The league reverts back to the TSL brand and goes to generic names.

[BattleHawks]

Ehrhart said that the league retained the rights to the USFL name after the ’86 legal battle with the NFL. He said league officials also licensed the rights to the team logos and still even get a royalty check every month.

“It’s not a big check, but we have a bank account in the USFL name,” he said. “So, we’ve been in continuous use for nearly 40 years. So they would need to sit down and talk with us. We’d be open to doing that.”

The league didn't exist after 1990, so there's no way that they could have retained the trademarks

And yet, they have, through their continuous use in licensing agreements, fan apparel, a documentary, and a book.

Whoops!

[MGB01]

Are you gonna change your handle to Whoops!?

That way it'd be like you were signing it

[johnnyangryfuzzball]

And yet, they have, through their continuous use in licensing agreements, fan apparel, a documentary, and a book.

Whoops!

Maybe they should have paid better attention when the trademarks came up for renewal instead of continuing to use them after they lapsed assuming no one would notice. But it's clear they saw no need until Woods snatched them up.

Whoops indeed.

[4th&long]

And yet, they have, through their continuous use in licensing agreements, fan apparel, a documentary, and a book.

Whoops!

Maybe they should have paid better attention when the trademarks came up for renewal instead of continuing to use them after they lapsed assuming no one would notice. But it's clear they saw no need until Woods snatched them up.

Whoops indeed.

Who even knows if this group ever really had ownership legally of the Trademarks ever. Do they really have this rights meaning do they have legally have a case for damages?

[MGB01]

And yet, they have, through their continuous use in licensing agreements, fan apparel, a documentary, and a book.

Whoops!

Maybe they should have paid better attention when the trademarks came up for renewal instead of continuing to use them after they lapsed assuming no one would notice. But it's clear they saw no need until Woods snatched them up.

Whoops indeed.

Who even knows if this group ever really had ownership legally of the Trademarks ever. Do they really have this rights meaning do they have legally have a case for damages?

20 years used as generic football footage on TV says they never did and it was public domain, kind of like how Chris Jericho and Lex Luger's themes in mid 90s WCW was also used as stock music on ESPN and, oddly enough, WWF TV.

[Tank55]

I thought someone was collecting rights fees for the TV commercials? I’m pretty sure that was in Pearlman’s book.

Edit: Supposedly its Gary Cohen, whose company was originally hired to produce USFL highlight films.

[johnnyangryfuzzball]

I thought someone was collecting rights fees for the TV commercials? I’m pretty sure that was in Pearlman’s book.

Edit: Supposedly its Gary Cohen, whose company was originally hired to produce USFL highlight films.

The TV footage falls under copyright instead of trademark. I believe Tollin/Robbins bought the intellectual property rights to that (I'm surprised, given the amount of leverage the TV contracts had, ABC/ESPN didn't simply keep that) and any time you see USFL footage, it's licensed—albeit at a much lower rate than NFL Films charges, hence the ubiquity.

[MGB01]

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... next-week/

Just a reminder that the XFL isn't the only league being friviolously legalesed

(Matter of fact the Flores' lawsuit makes it a trifecta. So actually, is there anyone that isn't, the IFL?)

Hey where's Whoopsie, we might need his to-the-chase analysis