A Different Moneymaker Qestion???

[charlie_t_jr]

Well, really not about Moneymaker at all. I was curious, why the WPT refers to CM as a 2003 world champ, and no references, spoken or in the graphics, mention WSOP.

OK, obvious, different networks and all, but this doesn't happen in baseball, football, auto racing, etc...just wondering???

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My guess is that ESPN bought exclusive rights for broadcast use of the phrase "World Series of Poker."

Similarly, last fall, radio stations giving away travel packages to the Super Bowl were barred from using the phrase "Super Bowl" in their promotion. I recall WEEI in Boston calling it "that big football game in Houston in Febrauary" and then joking that the audience knew what they meant even though they couldn't say it.

Come to think of it, this should be a question for Fossilman.

[charlie_t_jr]

You know I never thought of it, in those terms. I actually work for a radio station that gave away those packages to the Super Bowl. And we couldn't say "Super Bowl" directly refering to the give away. We could talk about the Super Bowl and mention it by name, but when we promo'ed the trip give away, we said "The Big Game".

I never thought of the WSOP, like that. I was thinking more in terms of Fox and...whoever, NBC? that shows the 2 different divional playoffs, leading up to the Super Bowl, and saying something like, The NFC champ will face the winner of that "other" division in the Super Bowl.

But I think your answer makes sense. Thanks.

[J.R.]

My guess is that ESPN bought exclusive rights for broadcast use of the phrase "World Series of Poker."

I think this type of exclusive right pertains to use for commercial gain, as ESPN can't get rights for the phrase "World Series of Poker" and prohibit everyone from using the phrase in any broadcasting context. For example, news organizations could use the phrase "World Series of Poker" in a report on Greg Raymer's recent victory.

You can't "buy" the exclusive rights to a phrase and prevent someone else from using it in all situations, but you can obtain the right to protect against the "commercial exploitation" of the goodwill you have built up in a particular phrase such as "World Series of Poker".

Its possible the WPT wanted to avoid any possible violation of this "exclusive rights" (I think this is a trademark) , but if they were to simply refer to Moneymaker as the "World Series of Poker" champion in 2003, the WPT is esentially just disseminating information in a manner similar to a news broadcast and is not really using the "World Series of Poker" phrase for commercial gain. However, if the WPT advertised the episode as chance to watch "World Series of Poker" champion Chris Moneymaker then the use becomes more commercial.

BTW, I think Harrah's owns this right via trademark and licensed it to ESPN, as it was Harrah's who sent legal notices to online sites running satellites to the WSOP that they could not use the phrase "World Series of Poker" without Harrah's permission, since such use was for commercial gain.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
You can't "buy" the exclusive rights to a phrase and prevent someone else from using it in all situations

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you can. Doesn't the famous boxing ring announcer (can't remmeber his name) have a copyright protection on the phrase "Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Donald Trump has recenlty been trying to gain the rights to "You're fired."

Nobody can use the "Let's get redy to rumble" phrase in a commercial venture without paying the ring announcer who owns it.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You can't "buy" the exclusive rights to a phrase and prevent someone else from using it in all situations

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you can. Doesn't the famous boxing ring announcer (can't remmeber his name) have a copyright protection on the phrase "Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Donald Trump has recenlty been trying to gain the rights to "You're fired."

Nobody can use the "Let's get redy to rumble" phrase in a commercial venture without paying the ring announcer who owns it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are correct he has at least 48829 lawsuits to file since if you do a search that is how many web page hits that come up. Personally I think you are either perpetuating a myth, exaggerating or at the very least misinformed.

[drewjustdrew]

Dynasty is exactly right.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then that settles it. How could I have ever doubted him in the first place. Thanks for your conclusive proof.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty is exactly right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well then that settles it. How could I have ever doubted him in the first place. Thanks for your conclusive proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't understand how I could be doubted. But, here's a link to Michael Buffer's website with some information about his trademark rights.

http://www.letsrumble.com/corporate/index.html

[J.R.]

Perhaps you did not understand my post, as your post makes the same point as mine did.

I said this "You can't "buy" the exclusive rights to a phrase and prevent someone else from using it in all situations , but you can obtain the right to protect against the " commercial exploitation " of the goodwill you have built up in a particular phrase such as "World Series of Poker".

You said this "Nobody can use the "Let's get redy to rumble" phrase in a commercial venture without paying the ring announcer who owns it-

You acknowledge that trademarks apply to commercial endeavors, just as I did. But its ubsurd to assert words can be trademarked and therefor precluded from legal use without the permission of the trademark holder in all situations .



You can't obtain the rights to a phrase (ie trademark the phrase) and prevent that phrase form being used in all situations. This is what is known as the "fair use" exception in trademark law.

"In general terms, the statutory "fair use" defense prevents a trademark owner from monopolizing, or appropriating a descriptive word or phrase. In a leading case on this defense, Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983), the court noted that: The defense is available only in actions involving descriptive terms and only when the term is used in its descriptive sense rather than its trademark sense.
698 F.2d at 791 (citing Soweco, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co., 617 F.2d 1178, 1185 (5th Cir. 1980). " link

Use in the trademark sense can commonly be read as in a commercial sense. As noted by the Zatarains court, you can't monopolize a word or phrase and prevent it from being used in all situations. But you can prevent others from using it in a non-descriptive sense with respect to their own product or good, (ie commercial endeavor) and exploiting the goodwill (economic value) that is associated with your use of the phrase. This mean I can't promote my boxing match using Michael Buffer's trademark.


I can say "lets get ready to rumble" all I want in non commercial settings. However, because Michael Buffer has trademarked the phrase "Lets Get Ready to Rumble", I can't say or use "Lets Get Ready to Rumble" in connection with promoting a one of my commercial endeavors (how broad the trademark protection extends is a legal issue), but the point is there are instances [essentially commercial endeavors] where you can't exploit the economic goodwill Michael Buffer has established in his trademarked "Lets Get Ready to Rumble" phrase. But I can still say "Lets Get Ready to Rumble" all I want before a pickup street hockey game or while talking trash to my freeinds or whatnot.




You are from New England, so perhaps this case will make sense:

Another key statutory fair use case, WCVB-TV v. Boston Athletic Association, 926 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1991), involved the use of the registered trademark BOSTON MARATHON by a television station in connection with its coverage of the event. This case highlights the importance of context in a fair use determination.

Without allowing others to use the term BOSTON MARATHON, it would be virtually impossible to describe the Boston Marathon -- one could hardly call it "the 26 point 2 mile race run in Boston once a year."

The First Circuit found that the fair use defense was properly asserted, reasoning that the trademark was used primarily in a descriptive manner. Because of the "timing, meaning, context, intent, and surrounding circumstances," there was no likelihood of confusion.

[T]he words "Boston Marathon" . . . do more than call attention to Channel 5's program; they also describe the event that Channel 5 will broadcast. Common sense suggests (consistent with the record here) that a viewer who sees those words flash upon the screen will believe simply that Channel 5 will show, or is showing, or has shown, the marathon, not that Channel 5 has some special approval from the [trademark holder] to do so. In technical trademark jargon, the use of words for descriptive purposes is called a "fair use," and the law usually permits it even if the words themselves also constitute a trademark.

926 F.2d at 46.