Talk:12th man (football)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Seahawks' use of the number 12

If you want to include a reference to the TAMU request to the Seahawks you have to allow a reference to the fact that the Seahawks are not using the trademarked term.

I realize that TAMU fans are upset that other teams fans are being refered to by the media as "12 man" but there is a concept in law called "fair use", and "common terms", which very much applies here.

The only thing that TAMU gained with the trademark is the commercial use of "12th man". They can not limit its use in conversation or for non-commercial uses. They can not trademark the number 12, they have not trademarked "the 12th man" or any other variation.

TAMU has asked the Seahawks to stop using their trademark but because the Seahawks have used the term "12th man" for commercial purposes there is a trademark infringement. They can stop doing something they are doing. It is the media and fans are the ones using the term and that falls within the common terms segment of the law. TAMU is shouting at the wind.

The bottom line is that fans of football teams nation wide are going to be refered to as the "12th man" and as much as TAMU wants to be the only group of fans ever refered to that way it is legally not possible and not going to happen in reality.

If anyone wants to work with me on a better way to write this I am open to suggestions.

-- Coz

Actually the Seahawks do use the term "The 12th Man" on memorabilia that they sell in their stadium store. It is very clear from an analysis of trademark law and precedent that at least some of the Seahawks' activities are in violation of the Texas A&M trademark, and at the very least, the Seahawks will need to stop making money off of the use of the phrase "The 12th Man" Just how much they are doing that violates the trademark is open to debate - for instance, their sale of jerseys with the number "12" and "Fan" on the back is a very close call.
As to your comment that "the seahawks are not using the trademarked term" - even when they are just using the number 12, if they give it the same meaning that "The 12th Man" has for A&M, i'm not sure that that is sufficiently different from the Texas A&M Trademark to be considered non-infringing. the primary difference between the two is that one has an ordinal number and one has a cardinal number - i have my doubts as to whether a court would find that difference to be meaningful in terms of making the Seahawks' use non-infringing
I added a bit to the article about the controversy, and i believe i treated it in a fair way. I didn't go through and add all the links.
-- Jay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.206.93 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
What I didn't know before is that A&M did not file the trademark till the early 90's and the Seahawks had been using it for nearly a decade at that point. A judge would most likely rule that the trademark was invalid as it had become a part of common language at that point. The legal experts interviewed here this week used the legal version of the phrase commonly refering to the the chance of a frozen sphere surviving in a high temp location.  ;-)
The use of "12" isn't a debatable issue, that is one of the most clear cut issues in trademark law. You can not trademark a number. The use of the name "Fan" on the jersey also isn't debatable. It's a common word, not trademarkable, and even if it was A&M didn't trademark anything using the word fan.
This is a no win situation for A&M and if they are not careful Paul Allen might buy the school and make it a branch campus of WaZOO.  ;-)
-- Coz
I just did some research and discovered that the A&M trademark was issued in Sept 1990 for the use "organizing and conducting intercollegiate sporting events". I also have learned that the trademark has expired and has been registered by an Australian company for "Beer; non-alcoholic carbonated beverages".
Looks like A&M is S.O.L. on this one. -- Coz

regarding: "The 6 year term of this registration expired in 2002 (online records of the United States Patent and Trademark Office [1])." This information is not correct. I reviewed TESS and both trademark registrations were properly maintained (both had Section 8 and 15 Affidavits filed).Jurisnipper 19:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Texas A&M's trademark is still live

FOR: entertainment services, namely organizing and conducting intercollegiate sporting events http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=8ibhbs.3.8

FOR: Hats, t-shirts, polo-type shirts, golf shirts, sweaters, shorts, and athletic uniforms. http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=8ibhbs.3.12 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.206.93 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also the argument that you cannot legally trademark general terms. For example, if I created a robotic toy dog, I would not be able to trademark the name "dog." This was one of the main argument's in Microsoft's trademark lawsuit against Lindows. (The argument is that when Windows was introduced, that type of GUI was commonly referred to as a "windowed" GUI). In the same way, the Seahawks will likely argue that since "12th man" is a commonly used term, the trademark is invalid. They will also likely argue that they were using it back in 1984, and Texas A&M did not initally file the trademark until 1990. --209.182.101.246 21:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Also, shouldn't we write "12th Man (TM)"? After all, if they want to get technical about their trademark, it should be marked as such. But then, A&M doesn't write "12th Man (TM)".--209.182.101.246 21:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually you misread the web site. The file is still live, but the trademark registration is only good for 6 years and has to be renewed. That 6 year period ended in 2002 and they did not file to renew it.
A key to having a valid trademark is to defend it properly. TAMU has failed completly in this regard by waiting over 6 decades to file for a trademark, nearly a decade after the Seahawks starting using #12, and then allowed that use to continue for over another decade before they took any action. They are likely to get a local judge, especially one that is a TAMU grad, to grant a TRO but they stand little chance of winning at any higher level court.
Bottom line is that they are taking a shot at trying to extract licensing fees from the Seahawks even though they are not using the trademark.
-- Coz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coz 11 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Recently Texas A&M is claiming that they are not going after the use of 12 at all but at the use of "12th Man" in reference to the Seahawks magazine and the football given to a fan with 12th man on it.

http://www.thebatt.com/media/paper657/news/2006/02/02/News/Seahawks.Am.To.Appear.In.Hearing-1596341.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thebatt.com

-- Randy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.230.214 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article. However some things don't fit. The magazine and ball issue are recent and TAMU first took issue on this several years ago. Oops.
Also he betrays his own comment when he says that it would take a lot of work to reel this back in. If all they were concerned about is the magazine and ball then it is simple to fix.
They are wrong about the Seahawks figuring a trial is not worth it. If they are happy with the Seahawks not putting "12th man" on anything sold commercially then yes, they might let it go, but if they ask for ANYTHING more then the Seahawks will drive this to court and TAMU will very likely lose their trademark. They have done a horrible job protecting it and it looks like it isn't even legally in effect right now.
This is all downside and no upside for TAMU, they should leave it alone.
-- Coz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coz 11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spread beyond America

I have definately heard this term used in England with association football (same meaning too), so does anyone mind this article being moved to 12th Man (football) instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamajpeg (talk • contribs) 06:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that there are trademark claims over the name and it is being used in England as well - seeing as in England, 12th man is a generic term used in cricket. -- Chuq 22:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The trademark is only for within the US, so anyone in England is free to use it as they wish. 12th Man has also become generic within the US in reference to the fans of various spots. Probably more expensive for the Seahawks to fight than it was to settle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 May 2006.
When was it first used in cricket? or other sports? if it predates 1 January 1922, you have a case. — BQZip01 — talk 15:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It;s been used in Cricket sine the 1880s when the Ashes series between England and Australia began so in theory if the Seahawks had decided to fight the Aggies over this then the Aggies would probably have lost the case as 12th man was first used in Cricket. As for Association Football the term has been in the background of the game for decades but it's only in the last decade or so that teams have physically been designating their squad number 12 to the fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.48.9 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears that the term is used in Cricket to identify the substitute fielder who can neither bat or bowl. This useage is not the same as refered to by Texas A&M where the crowd itself is refered to as the 12th Man. In addition, the useage by Cricket teams overseas would not have impacted the Texas A&M - Seahawks case since the issue was being determined in United States courts to determine American ownership of the phrase. And since Cricket receives zero exposure in the USA, dilution of the term also could not have been claimed. Macae 17:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It is settled

8 May 2006

MEMORANDUM

To: Texas A&M Students, Faculty and Staff

Subject: 12th Man Trademark Settlement

I’m pleased to inform you that, after months of negotiations, the university has reached an amicable agreement with the Seattle Seahawks resolving the controversy regarding the use of Texas A&M’s 12th Man trademark. Under the agreement, the university has granted the NFL team a license to use the 12th Man trademark in a seven-state area in the northwest that encompasses the current primary broadcast area of the Seahawks. As is the case of all licensees, the Seattle Seahawks will pay the university a licensing fee and will state publicly that Texas A&M owns the 12th Man trademark each time it is used.

It is hard for non-Aggies—and the media—to understand the depth of what the 12th Man reference and depiction—and the underlying tradition – means to Texas A&M and as a result, the university was criticized for vigorously opposing use of the trademark by the Seahawks. As you know, the 12th Man is more than a trademark, greater than football and certainly more than changing the course of a football game. The 12th Man is a call to action for Aggies. It symbolizes loyalty and our unique Aggie Spirit. It creates friendships where none existed before, heals wounds that seemed to be beyond repair and creates a common language that Aggies speak all over the world.

We had no choice but to challenge the Seattle Seahawks, just as we must protect and defend in every way possible all of our trademarks – and none is more crucial than that of the 12th Man because of all it means to Aggies. We have not only protected the 12 Man trademark, but have strengthened it for the future to ensure that others cannot successfully challenge us.

Now, we are in a position to license our trademark as a means of broadening our coverage and unquestioned ownership of the mark in both professional and collegiate sports.

In the fall, you will see an unprecedented focus on our 12th Man trademark here at Texas A&M. Our goal is to maximize the recognition and connection to our school.


Gig Em’

Steven B. Moore Chief Marketing Officer & Vice President for Communications —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.194.53.253 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date Format

Primary focus of this topic (and origin of phrase) is US, so according to Wikipedia style guidelines US date format is used. WP:DATE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.76.32.15 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] merge proposal

12th Man (Texas A&M) should be merged into 12th Man (football). Most of the content on these articles are the same. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Approve - I don't see a problem with merging the A&M article into this one. Might get some Aggies protesting the change, but this article does a good job of noting that the Aggies appear to be the origin of the term and with a bit of expansion it can show the importance of the term to the Aggies. --Bobblehead 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Approve - I have to agree. TAMU may have been the school that filed for the trademark, and likely the first organized use of the term, but it has been a common term everywhere in football regardless of its roots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coz 11 (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Swift 03:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Disapprove - The 12th man at A&M has its own history behind it, and I would suggest it be merged with, if anything, the Kyle Field article. Whereas Seattle and other teams just use "12th man" to describe the loudness of their fans, A&M has a tradition of actually letting the "12th man" play during a game, which dates back over 80 years (and the Seahawks, since the 1980's). I propose either leaving it, or adding it to Kyle Field. In addition, the article is too long to be added to one section, far too complex. Zchris87v 23:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    But the two articles already share most of their content. Merging would not lengthen the resulting page considerably.
    What do you mean by "play during the game"? I couldn't see it mentioned in the article. --Swift 00:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    "Currently one "walk-on" player represents the Texas A&M student body each game, and wears uniform number 12." That's what I mean, that one person actually dresses out in the number 12 jersey, one student. Their tradition is a little different than the traditional 12th man being loudness of the crowd. Zchris87v 00:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Interesting, could you put that in the article? (either one ;-))
    So the Aggies have this tradition, the Seahawks seem to have another (article(s) state(s) that their fans frequently dress in jerseys with the number 12) and for yet other American football teams the 12th is the sheer loudness. Here in Old Europe it refers rather to the atmosphere (psycology rather than sound distraction).
    It seems that the tradition of 12th Man appears in many different forms. All would benefit from comparison to each other but so far, none seems to warrant an article of its own. --Swift 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Could you comment on this ("would not lengthen [...] considerably")? Do you think there is too much unique material on either article that doesn't belong in an article with a more general scope? --Swift 12:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    Well, now that I look at it, that's correct. As for that line I copied and pasted, that was from the A&M football article (just about the only section missing from the 12th man article). I think the 12th man article should focus more on the generic use of the 12th man, while the A&M article should focus more on just A&M's tradition. If this was one, there would be two separate articles, the A&M one with a link to the generic term, and the generic term's article stating that the tradition began at A&M. I know it is quite off-topic, but elaborating on each team's usage in this article would probably be helpful and more beneficial to users. Zchris87v 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    I just fail to see why these cannot be on the same page. They go well together for comparison and I don't see there being enough material for seperate articles. If kept apart, they would probably both reference the A&M vs. Seahawks lawsuit.
    Unless the page grows leaps and bounds, the article will be of well managable size covering a well defined concept. As per User:Bobblehead, I think we do no-one disservice by merging the articles. But, then again we may be coming down to the point-of-view part in this discussion... --Swift 20:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As nothing new has been added to this discussion for nine days, I've merged the two articles. --Swift 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good job on the merger.;) It's short and concise. --Bobblehead 12:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I do see one flaw in the article. One section says "The Buffalo Bills and Seattle Seahawks continue to use the phrase." while the next section says "Both the Bills and the Bears responded to the requests stating they would no longer use the phrase". I do not know which is the case. --Coz 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This existed in the article before the merger (see [2]). I've already been mentioned it here on the talk page in the hope that someone more knowledgeble will fix it.. --Swift 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly conflicting statements on the Buffalo Bills

The current revision says in 12th Man#Texas A&M trademark issues and Seattle Seahawks lawsuit that

the Bills and the Bears responded to the requests stating they would no longer use the phrase

but in 12th Man#Use in American football it says

The Buffalo Bills and Seattle Seahawks continue to use the phrase.

What is the scoop on the Buffalo Bill's bill. --Swift 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be bad reporting at the time. They've cleaned up the website quite a bit during the offseason, but when I meandered over to the Bills and Bears official websites to find out when they stopped using the 12th Man and found an entire section called the 12th Man. Here's a link to their 12th man walkof fame. Either that or the Bills were just slow in cleaning up the references to 12th man. --Bobblehead 12:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
They appear to STILL be slow in removing the trademarked term... BQZip01 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommend rephrasing opening sentence

In reference to The term has been claimed to be created by Texas A&M University in 1922. (see Origin and Texas A&M tradition below)

This is an awkward and inaccurate phrase. This sentence should open a history segment. "The term orignated in 1922 when..." I'm going to do a little rewrite and split the segment into two sections: History/Origins and Texas A&M Tradition. BQZip01 14:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh it was created in 1922. There isn't a dispute in facts here. Why not put "claims" in everything with a weblink? Everything is a claim. If there is a dispute, let's hear it. BQZip01 05:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trademark year?

[edit] Dubious

> the official registration of the mark was not filed by Texas A&M (U.S. Reg. No. 1948306) until September of 1990, after passage by Congress of the Federal Dilution Trademark Act of 1995.

They filed in 1990 after passage of the 1995 act? Doesn't make sense TheHYPO (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some were allowed to be filed retroactively IAW the Act. — BQZip01 — talk 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soccer vs. Association Football

No objection to calling it football, but "association football" is relatively obscure and the term "soccer" is much more common, as mentioned on the association football article. In order to distinguish it from American football, soccer is appropriate here. — BQZip01 — talk 00:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)