After months of threatening it, the Army has finally gone through with its legal action against the Vegas Golden Knights. They're claiming trademark infringement because of the Army's parachute unit known as the "Golden Knights." This is already the third trademark-related lawsuit filed against the NHL's newest team. Both the College of St. Rose and University of Central Florida, who are both known as the Golden Knights, have done the same. Because evidently people are confusing each of them with the professional hockey team.
The team's statement in response really said it all: "We strongly dispute the Army's allegations that confusion is likely between the Army Golden Knights parachute team and the Vegas Golden Knights major-league hockey team. Indeed, the two entities have been coexisting without any issues for over a year (along with several other Golden Knights trademark owners) and we are not aware of a single complaint from anyone attending our games that they were expecting to see the parachute team and not a professional hockey game."
It's no secret that Golden Knights owner Bill Foley, who attended West Point, has an affinity for the Academy. His ownership group is called "Black Knight Sports & Entertainment," and he originally wanted to name the team the "Black Knights" after Army's athletic teams, but backed off after meeting federal resistance. (It's unlikely "Black Knights" would've been approved by the league anyway since it's too similar to "Blackhawks.") The Golden Knights' colors being exactly the same as Army's athletic teams isn't a coincidence, either.
But the idea that people are going to confuse the Vegas Golden Knights with the Army Golden Knights or the Saint Rose Golden Knights is simply asinine. In fact, I think this legal action (especially from the colleges) is more about themselves than it is about the hockey team. Because, let's face it, when sports fans hear "Golden Knights," their first thought is going to be the hockey team. It's not that there's confusion. It's that they're worried their own name will lose relevance.
There are plenty of organizations with similar names who've been able to avoid confusion for years, so I don't see where this should be any different. People don't go to a Cardinals-Giants game in July expecting to see Larry Fitzgerald and Odell Beckham. Likewise, they'd be pretty surprised to see Yadi Molina and Buster Posey take the field during a Cardinals-Giants game in December.
In fact, both the Cardinals and Giants football teams used to play in the same city as the Cardinals and Giants baseball teams. It was 30 years ago that the football Cardinals moved to Arizona, but it had to have been far more confusing to have two professional teams in the same city with the same name than to have a pro team sharing a name with a completely unrelated entity.
Besides, there are how many different college teams with the same nickname? There are three Tigers in the SEC's Western Division alone! And, let's not forget, the CFL had both the Saskatchewan Roughriders and Ottawa Rough Riders until the latter folded in 1996. (Ottawa's subsequent teams have had different names for the obvious reasons.)
I understand wanting to protect your own brand, but it's ridiculous to suggest the Vegas Golden Knights shouldn't be allowed to trademark their name and logo because other things happen to called the same thing. Because you know what? There are a lot of things that have similar names! There are two countries named Congo and four variations of Guinea, as well as Dominica and the Dominican Republic.
My point is that you're far more likely to confuse the Republic of Congo with the Democratic Republic of the Congo than you are the Army Golden Knights and the Vegas Golden Knights. And even if the Army ends up being successful in this trademark case, what are they hoping to get out of it? The Golden Knights hockey team has become one of the most popular franchises in the NHL. It's not like they'll be able to stop people from wearing their apparel and referring to them by that name.
Essentially, the most likely thing they'll be able to accomplish will be preventing the Vegas Golden Knights from trademarking the name and logo themselves, which would prevent them from getting the royalties that come with officially licensed products. And, since the logo wouldn't be trademarked, people wouldn't have to pay to use it.
A logo is one thing. That I get. But the name? I don't see any reason why there should be an issue with the name. When Army folks refer to the "Golden Knights," they'll be talking about a parachute troop. When hockey fans say it, they'll be talking about the team in Las Vegas. It's all about the context and the company you're in. Kinda like how you know the difference between the Carolina Panthers and the Florida Panthers or the Texas Rangers and the New York Rangers.
And even if the court were to agree with the Army about the "Golden Knights" trademark, what about the "Vegas" part? That's a key thing, too. The hockey team's name is the Vegas Golden Knights. That alone should eliminate any confusion. Or, if they want, they could just have some guys parachute in from the roof of T-Mobile Arena at the start of every game.
No comments:
Post a Comment