bruno14 Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 After some classic pub talk, my mate claims that fox (the American TV company) are planning a legal case against us over the nickname foxes. Obviously, we told him he was chatting nonsense and 'fox' and 'foxes' are different words. But, he is absolutely adamant that this is the case. Just wondered if anyone had any information regarding this issue, (please prove him wrong ) and what happens to websites like foxestalk? Do they have to change name too?
Wymsey Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 One thing to say . We've always been called the foxes, right? Don't believe in that at all. I don't see why they are planning a legal case about the word foxes/fox. Silly really
lee(lcfc) Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 surely our nickname been around longer then them
davieG Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 One thing to say . We've always been called the foxes, right? Don't believe in that at all. During your lifetime maybe.
themotivator Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 what about michael j fox. surely that is closer to "Fox" than "foxes" is. he would never have gotten to where he is in his career without such a cool name. sue him to death now!
Wymsey Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 During your lifetime maybe. Well my i read one of my Grandad's lcfc matchday magazines from when he was a teen not long ago which was from the 1939 season and in one of the match reports from it it says 'the foxes scored....' So i presume the club nickname was this? (as well as Fosse) but i don't know when this Fox american company was formed so....
topharry123 Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 I think someone is pulling your leg there, can't see anything about it anywhere online and it doesn't sound likely to me.
davieG Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 Well my i read one of my Grandad's lcfc matchday magazines not long ago which was from from the 1939 season and in one of the match reports from it it says 'the foxes scored....' So i presume the club nickname was this? (as well as Fosse) but i don't know when this Fox american company was formed so.... We used to be known as the Filberts when I first watched them in the 60s, I remember reading that we didn't even have a Fox in the badge until the late 40s / early 50s. Either way it's not a case of always
davieG Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 I take your word for it then. I'm only questioning the 'always' statement, don't give in so easily re the actual dates if you've got written evidence of it's use in 1939 then maybe what I've written is wrong.
MrSpaM Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 The Fox Entertainment Group was set up in the nineties. Your mates having you on And if your going to be anal about it, the company that actually own fox were set up in 1979 now where was i..... LA LA LA LA LA LA BAMBA! LA LA LA LA LA LA BAMBA!
Jackirius Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 We used to be known as the Filberts when I first watched them in the 60s, I remember reading that we didn't even have a Fox in the badge until the late 40s / early 50s. Either way it's not a case of always Fox Broadcasting Company only established themselves in 1986. Wouldn't be a problem and they wouldn't take out a legal case against us if anything we could take one out against them but neither side would succeed, your mate was either winding you up or pissed.
Zingari Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 glacier mints , biscuits , football teams , news corporations , page 3 girls ,estate agents , all with the name "fox" in it it's all very confusing and hopefully they'll set some great legal minds on the solving this problem
adam1 Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 Someones been winding him up or he is winding you up. Intellectual property. Talk about attempted monopolisation of a word! Anyway even the most retarded American lawyer wouldn't try it.
Jordan Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 Just because Leicester have been called the "Foxes" for generations doesn't mean that Leicester City have registered a trademark for "Foxes." Also, "Fox Leisure," "Fox Travel" etc. may have been trademarked after the Fox network got its name. But I'm just being a dick because, really, your friend is being absolutely ridiculous. Anyway, if Murdoch really wants to be that big of a cvnt, why doesn't he get Sky to sue Coventry City? Or The Sun to sue the sun?
Jackirius Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 Just because Leicester have been called the "Foxes" for generations doesn't mean that Leicester City have registered a trademark for "Foxes." Also, "Fox Leisure," "Fox Travel" etc. may have been trademarked after the Fox network got its name. But I'm just being a dick because, really, your friend is being absolutely ridiculous. Anyway, if Murdoch really wants to be that big of a cvnt, why doesn't he get Sky to sue Coventry City? Or The Sun to sue the sun? You can't trademark names as generalised as Fox.
Hitesh Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 Oh dear. Good luck to them if this is any bit true. I want to be the first ones to laugh in their face when this case gets dismissed.
Rich Fox Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 Foxes glacier mints will have to change there name also.
Zingari Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 will real foxes have to be called something else ?
adam1 Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 You can't trademark names as generalised as Fox. As a word mark I agree but if included in a "picture mark" [i.e. logo] then yes it would be possible but the protection of the word 'fox' would be limited to the specific product or market for which it was well known. ### edit: It also depends on the product or market. Obviously fox is fairly common surname. Something I need to emphasise is that the main focus of the picture mark should not be the word 'fox' but the word as part of a larger mark. ### Generally for common words businesses would use unfair competition (passing off) which is common law and not statutory. Obviously for tm infringement the onus would be on the infringer to prove he hasn't infringed therefore having a tm is beneficial for enforcement and brand protection. If this was true (highly unlikely - is it April 1st?) it wouldn't be for tm infringement. It would be for passing off.
Trav Le Bleu Posted 10 January 2011 Posted 10 January 2011 glacier mints , biscuits , football teams , news corporations , page 3 girls ,estate agents , all with the name "fox" in it it's all very confusing and hopefully they'll set some great legal minds on the solving this problem I thought they were all the same company.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.