Manchester United sues Football Manager makers over use of name

[noodlehair]

Do you feel like you should be able to print and sell Manchester United shirts with logos and names and make a profit?

I think you should do it and then I get the profit.

This way we both win, because if we get sued, I can't be sued because I didn't print the shirts, and you can't be sued because you didn't make a profit.

Perfectly logical plan. Everyone wins.

 

[fergies coat]

Bit pathetic really isn't it. My girlfriend use to make hair bows, she made one's with the Stockport County crest and put them on Facebook. The club messaged her to tell her to take them off or they were entitled to some profit. They were only a quid each couldn't believe it.

 

[Denis79]

Do you feel like you should be able to print and sell Manchester United shirts with logos and names and make a profit?

Are they printing logos and selling shirts? They are just referring to a digital club by it's name like with 10 000 other clubs, which don't seem to mind btw.

Disney sued a father who put the Spiderman logo on the gravestone of his child. It's all over the top with greed and "brand protection".

 

[TrustInOle]

Bit pathetic really isn't it. My girlfriend use to make hair bows, she made one's with the Stockport County crest and put them on Facebook. The club messaged her to tell her to take them off or they were entitled to some profit. They were only a quid each couldn't believe it.

Are they printing logos and selling shirts? They are just referring to a digital club by it's name like with 10 000 other clubs, which don't seem to mind btw.

Disney sued a father who put the Spiderman logo on the gravestone of his child. It's all over the top with greed and "brand protection".

Both examples given can seem over the top, specifically the grave stone job. But the key difference here is another multi-million company copyrighting another. Whether United are being 'petty' about this is another discussion, but the examples given are far of the mark for what is going on here. Businessmen fighting businessmen over money.

 

[TrustInOle]

Absolute waste of time. They've just moved a few letters around. Man UFC.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Dana White won't be happy.

 

[Denis79]

Both examples given can seem over the top, specifically the grave stone job. But the key difference here is another multi-million company copyrighting another. Whether United are being 'petty' about this is another discussion, but the examples given are far of the mark for what is going on here. Businessmen fighting businessmen over money.

Good point, it's the petty part that annoys me. Never played the game so that's not the reason it tickles me the wrong way, I just find it extremely petty as you said.

 

[Denis79]

Absolute waste of time. They've just moved a few letters around. Man UFC.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

What a great victory for the club! Fantastic news!

 

[ivaldo]

Are they printing logos and selling shirts? They are just referring to a digital club by it's name like with 10 000 other clubs, which don't seem to mind btw.

Disney sued a father who put the Spiderman logo on the gravestone of his child. It's all over the top with greed and "brand protection".

Was the father selling the graves to millions of people for profit? This isn't the club going after people making a few quid selling unofficial gear online or grieving fathers. There are countless other companies that pay for the rights to use the clubs brand. That's a big chunk of money that the fans demand to be spent on players. Why should Sega get special dispensation?

 

[Acole9]

Should be the Manchester Super Reds like the Don Broco song .

 

[Andrew7582]

It won't make any difference at all for FM players, we are already accustomed to editing the game by adding logos and facepacks. Changing the name of a team in the game is very easy, no big deal.

 

[Lastwolf]

I wonder what sort of money they actually want from this? I know EA has all the rights for the football games but like seriously it's just a name, they haven't used offical club badges in like 10 years. Imma change it to Newton Heath out of badness.

 

[Herman Toothrot]

Who cares?

I'm surprised they've gotten away with it for so long, it's only a few seconds in the editor for those who really care to fix.

Nothing to get hysterical over.

 

[Denis79]

Was the father selling the graves to millions of people for profit? This isn't the club going after people making a few quid selling unofficial gear online or grieving fathers. There are countless other companies that pay for the rights to use the clubs brand. That's a big chunk of money that the fans demand to be spent on players. Why should Sega get special dispensation?

There's nothing to win here, club won't get anything instead they'll just rename the club in the game. Is that a win? Just petty crap.

 

[Tom Cato]

Are they printing logos and selling shirts? They are just referring to a digital club by it's name like with 10 000 other clubs, which don't seem to mind btw.

Disney sued a father who put the Spiderman logo on the gravestone of his child. It's all over the top with greed and "brand protection".

I wrote a longer reply above the oneliner you're quoting. If you read that I explain why it matters and why the club has to.

Here's the link: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/man...-makers-over-use-of-name.454811/post-27594572

I remember the Disney case and the tombstone request. Disney had a good reason to say no to this and it has nothing to do with Disney being greedy. Why in gods name do you think everything stems from greed?

Firstly: This incident was obviously very much filled with bottomless mourning from the family, and subsequent outrage from the internet that latches onto everything with the biggest justice boners. When the masses smell blood, reason goes out the window.

When Walt Disney was still around, he handed down a rule that prohibited the use of the Disney logo and owned characters on symbols of sorrow, hereunder coffins, tombstones, urns etc. The Disney characters symbolize innocence, joy, life and happiness. And that is why Disney himself made that decision decades ago.

Sure it sounds like a small and petty thing, but it all rolls back to a point of principle: Do you keep the founding fathers wishes, or do you ignore them and open up the intellectual property to use on symbols of mourning? Because if they give permission to one, why can't the next one? and the next one? I mean, I doubt there is a large market for childrens tombstone figures, at least I sincerely hope so, but the line has to go somewhere, and the easiest place is: Nowhere.

Disney never sued anyone. The family wrote the company and they declined their request, citing the rules set by Disney himself. They also included a letter and offer of condolences. "“Although we cannot grant the family’s request, we would be pleased to commemorate your nephew with a hand-inked, hand-painted, personalized cell that recognises his love for Spider-Man, which will read: ‘For your ——- (nephew’s name), Thank you for letting us share in the magic of your life. Your friends at the Walt Disney Company.’ We feel privileged to have had him as a fan.”"

 

[sparx99]

There's nothing to win here, club won't get anything instead they'll just rename the club in the game. Is that a win? Just petty crap.

Yeah it seems dumb. Like what’s the thought process ‘let’s sue one of the most popular sports games and alienate those same fans who like our team?’. Just agree a small licensing fee and donate it to charity or something. It’s put me off buying a shirt this season as dumb as that it.

 

[ivaldo]

There's nothing to win here, club won't get anything instead they'll just rename the club in the game. Is that a win? Just petty crap.

It's not about gaining, it's about protecting. If you were paying United for rights and you discovered there were other companies flagrantly ignoring trademark without punishment, would you be happy?

 

[Brophs]

I think it's rather weirder that you and others treat a specific legal position on image rights as if it was pre-ordained, natural and indisputable, despite the fact that a) United has accepted this use from the same company for several decades and b) the obvious fact that making management simulations with a global scope would be either impossible or prohibitively expensive if the same position was taken by all clubs and leagues.

It doesn't really need saying, but the right of a company to make a simulation game doesn't and will never trump the right of a party to vindicate their property rights, regardless of how petty people find it.

 

[Barnslig]

SI games and EA are worlds apart when it comes to revenue.

They are in the same category of games. Sports. You can argue that 'subcategory' of games matter, but Intellectual Property is designated by name and industry, not category of industry. Logo and likeness are more broad encompassing. For example you won't find a "Nike Drycleaning"

Konami PAY Manchster United money to license the name and likeness in gaming and entertainment. The club can't ignore that other players are using the name for commercial profit when other players pay.

Where do we even draw the line?

Commercial licensing. That's where we draw the line.

By this logic, nobody here on redcafe should be allowed to use the word Manchester United without paying United to be able to do so.

You and I use the Manchester United name in conversation, I do not profit from a commercial product I don't license.

Would youtubers have to stop using Uniteds name or wearing United merchandise on their videos because they’re making money whilst wearing United gear without giving United a cut.

YouTubers are generating commercial profit from the Manchester United name through fan association, but they are fan channels that contribute to the clubs potential own commercial growth. They do not pretend to represent the club in an official capacity. Plus fanclubs (official clubs endorsed by the club) and unofficial clubs have decades long traditions of excisting in the same sphere and is not subject to the same commercial scrutiny as a company that sells physical and digital goods. For the Youtube presenters to wear Manchester United gear they've bought is of course preferable to wearing anything else. The club already received their small% cut and revenue from the apparel sponsorship with their commercial partners. Websites that sell Manchester United products have made licensing deals with the clubs relevant commerical partner for the right to use the name, logo and playernames on products they sell.

So why even sue now?

Well, in reality the club should have sought a deal with SI a long time ago. Manchester United is a trademarked name and global brand with certain responsibilities pertaining to its Intellectual Properties. For example the name and logo are commercially trademarked: https://www.trademarkia.com/company-manchester-united-football-club-limited-4844924-page-1-2 - The growth of the market and global reach have prompted the necessity of such an action. The PES games are a great example of commercial licensing rights to names, logos and likeness.

The Manchester United football club is also a trademarked commercial entity and must challenge all uses of its name and likeness if they want to control their Intellectual Property rights. If the club does not challenge SI on its use of the name Manchester United and contracted player names, they can risk forfeiting the opportunity to commercially license the name thorugh acquiescence.

You're also overestimating how much time the club dedicates to this particular topic. It's simply been forwarded to the teams legalteam that are retained to do a job anyway, no resources that could have gone anywhere else were spent.

Manchester United challenigng SI in litigation does not meant that they burn any bridges with the company, it simply means that they are aknowledning that they have a obligation to protect their IP so it can't be used in unlicensed commercial works. The club will effectively forfeit the opportunity to license the name if they do.

So no, the club and its representatives are not being "daft". They're adults that know what they're doing.

Great post.

 

[Denis79]

I wrote a longer reply above the oneliner you're quoting. If you read that I explain why it matters and why the club has to.

Here's the link: https://www.redcafe.net/threads/man...-makers-over-use-of-name.454811/post-27594572

I remember the Disney case and the tombstone request. Disney had a good reason to say no to this and it has nothing to do with Disney being greedy. Why in gods name do you think everything stems from greed?

Firstly: This incident was obviously very much filled with bottomless mourning from the family, and subsequent outrage from the internet that latches onto everything with the biggest justice boners. When the masses smell blood, reason goes out the window.

When Walt Disney was still around, he handed down a rule that prohibited the use of the Disney logo and owned characters on symbols of sorrow, hereunder coffins, tombstones, urns etc. The Disney characters symbolize innocence, joy, life and happiness. And that is why Disney himself made that decision decades ago.

Sure it sounds like a small and petty thing, but it all rolls back to a point of principle: Do you keep the founding fathers wishes, or do you ignore them and open up the intellectual property to use on symbols of mourning? Because if they give permission to one, why can't the next one? and the next one? I mean, I doubt there is a large market for childrens tombstone figures, at least I sincerely hope so, but the line has to go somewhere, and the easiest place is: Nowhere.

Disney never sued anyone. The family wrote the company and they declined their request, citing the rules set by Disney himself. They also included a letter and offer of condolences. "“Although we cannot grant the family’s request, we would be pleased to commemorate your nephew with a hand-inked, hand-painted, personalized cell that recognises his love for Spider-Man, which will read: ‘For your ——- (nephew’s name), Thank you for letting us share in the magic of your life. Your friends at the Walt Disney Company.’ We feel privileged to have had him as a fan.”"

My mistake, they did not sue the family, just turned down their request. Disney are otherwise rutheless when it comes to their lawsuits and greed. They portrait themselves as a wholesome, family loving company while misusing their employees, paying shit wages and the same time the higher ups pocket disguisting money.

And all that founder wishes bullshit I don't buy at all, just a niceer way to say feck off to the family.

 

[justsomebloke]

It doesn't really need saying, but the right of a company to make a simulation game doesn't and will never trump the right of a party to vindicate their property rights, regardless of how petty people find it.

Sorry, but what does apparently need saying is that you and several others on this thread are taking an absurdly simplistic view of how property rights work.

SEGA did not lose the case.

Intellectual property rights doesn't work in the way that the owner of a brand has a straightforward and unrestricted right to limit its use by others. It is in fact far from clear exactly where that right ends. This is why there's a constant stream of litigation in these issues, and why big companies invest huge amounts into lobbying for legislation that strengthens their hand. The issues raised by several posters in this thread (other than they should do it because SEGA is a small company, which obviously won't cut it), which revolve around whether it is in the general public interest to allow brand owners to limit usage in specific ways, are what these battles revolve around. To raise them is not a sentimental refusal to accept the realities of business, it is on the contrary precisely the heart of the issue. It is also, apparently, the sort of arguments SEGA used in their defence, which prevailed.

Manchester United lost the first ruling in the case - in other words, the legal system upheld SEGAs claims. But United did not drop the issue, which has resulted in an amicable settlement where SEGA has agreed to use the name "Manchester UFC" in future versions of the game. In other words, the rights that you and some others posters assumed to be self-evident to the point of it being silly to discuss them could not be legally enforced, after a court battle of more than a year's duration. The most United could achieve was to make things uncomfortable and costly enough for SEGA to force them into a minor concession, explicitly made with the proviso that it does not imply any agreement that SEGA couldn't have used "Manchester United" if they had wanted to.

Sega’s early win against Man Utd in Football Manager trade mark case - LawInSport
Manchester United to be renamed on Football Manager following trademark settlement - Manchester Evening News

 

[Brophs]

Nope. All you seem to have done there is thrown up a straw man and gotten irritated by something you’ve imagined me saying. I haven’t offered any view on the property rights in this situation. I was simply responding to point (b) in your reply about how it would be prohibitively expensive for a company to make a realistic simulation game if all clubs took this approach. Which might be persuasive in your mind but which would have precisely no legal bearing if there was found to have been a breach.

 

[Brophs]

Sorry, but what does apparently need saying is that you and several others on this thread are taking an absurdly simplistic view of how property rights work.

SEGA did not lose the case.

Intellectual property rights doesn't work in the way that the owner of a brand has a straightforward and unrestricted right to limit its use by others. It is in fact far from clear exactly where that right ends. This is why there's a constant stream of litigation in these issues, and why big companies invest huge amounts into lobbying for legislation that strengthens their hand. The issues raised by several posters in this thread (other than they should do it because SEGA is a small company, which obviously won't cut it), which revolve around whether it is in the general public interest to allow brand owners to limit usage in specific ways, are what these battles revolve around. To raise them is not a sentimental refusal to accept the realities of business, it is on the contrary precisely the heart of the issue. It is also, apparently, the sort of arguments SEGA used in their defence, which prevailed.

Manchester United lost the first ruling in the case - in other words, the legal system upheld SEGAs claims. But United did not drop the issue, which has resulted in an amicable settlement where SEGA has agreed to use the name "Manchester UFC" in future versions of the game. In other words, the rights that you and some others posters assumed to be self-evident to the point of it being silly to discuss them could not be legally enforced, after a court battle of more than a year's duration. The most United could achieve was to make things uncomfortable and costly enough for SEGA to force them into a minor concession, explicitly made with the proviso that it does not imply any agreement that SEGA couldn't have used "Manchester United" if they had wanted to.

Sega’s early win against Man Utd in Football Manager trade mark case - LawInSport
Manchester United to be renamed on Football Manager following trademark settlement - Manchester Evening News

Nope. All you seem to have done there is thrown up a straw man and gotten irritated by something you’ve imagined me saying. I haven’t offered any view on the property rights in this situation. I was simply responding to point (b) in your reply about how it would be prohibitively expensive for a company to make a realistic simulation game if all clubs took this approach. Which might be persuasive in your mind but which would have precisely no legal bearing if there was found to have been a breach.

 

[justsomebloke]

Nope. All you seem to have done there is thrown up a straw man and gotten irritated by something you’ve imagined me saying. I haven’t offered any view on the property rights in this situation. I was simply responding to point (b) in your reply about how it would be prohibitively expensive for a company to make a realistic simulation game if all clubs took this approach. Which might be persuasive in your mind but which would have precisely no legal bearing if there was found to have been a breach.

Firstly, if you argue that the competition argument has no legal bearing on the case, then you are in fact offering a view on property rights in this situation, and making assumptions about how that works.

Secondly, and contrary to what you assume, exactly that argument was the gist of Sega/SIs case:

Sega and SI say the use of the club’s name is “a legitimate reference to the Manchester United football team in a football context” and has been used in Football Manager and its predecessor Championship Manager since 1992 “without complaint by the claimant”.

The companies have accused the club of trying to “prevent legitimate competition in the video games field by preventing parties not licensed by the claimant from using the name of the Manchester United football team within such games”.

In other words, the competition argument is not something that is extraneous to the question of breach, but an important aspect of that question. Which again brings me back to my point about taking too much for granted in how property rights work. So a strawman that is not.