Oh MLS, oh MLS, take another bong hit…
The notion that MLS has the right to trademark the term “Cascadia Cup” in Canada (or anywhere else) is ludicrous. There, that’s out of the way.
Now, to business. We have two months from the date of advertisement (the date the application appeared in the Trademarks Journal – so far it doesn’t appear that this application has been advertised, but I haven’t scoured all the issues since Dec. 19) to oppose the registration.
Any person (including foreign persons) has standing to oppose the registration of a mark, so long as they have a legitimate beef under Section 38 (linked above). In our case, the legitimate beef is that the Supporter’s Groups use of the term “Cascadia Cup” substantially pre-dates the date filed in MLS’ application. Also, the term (in soccer parlance) can only apply to the three-team competition between the Whitecaps, the Sounders and the Timbers. So MLS has no right to it (see above re: “ludicrous”)
While we’re going through the process of opposing registration in Canada (and, in theory, eventually applying for the trademark there), we also need to apply with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to register “Cascadia Cup.” It’s a shame that we have to do this, but if MLS is going to try to end-run their way around our intellectual property rights, we’re pretty much obliged.
While we’re going through this bullshit, each Supporter’s Group should probably also consider what sort of consolidated entity they want to maintain this kind of nonsense for each group and also for Cascadia as a whole.
I find it hard to stomach the fact that some portion of 107ist’s budget will now have to be applied to lawyers (says the lawyer), but it’s increasingly clear that we’re going to require legal ammunition to maintain our heritage in the face of MLS’ co-option attempts.
I’m hoping that all of this is old news to the board. I’m hoping that the groups already have their heads together and have found a trademark agent already. Because this is stupid, and it cannot stand.
Would the Independent Supporters Council be a good organization to register multi-supporter-group-created trademarks?
Ed – I think it’s a decent option, but I also think there’s an argument to be made for a Cascadia Council. The real question is who’s going to care more about maintaining the integrity of the Cascadia Cup mark, and more broadly, Cascadian interests in general. An organization that has as diverse a constituency as the ISC might get complacent. Maybe it’s just a question of formalizing whatever organization currently “runs” the Cascadia Cup.
It’s also enough for the three supporter’s groups to jointly oppose the current application – we don’t need another entity for that – but considering the addition of two NWSL teams to the mix, potential “USL-as-reserve-league” agreements, and more, there’s going to be a lot of soccer in the pacific northwest.
To cut short what threatens to be a long meandering comment: MLS thinks of us as a brand. We need to start thinking that way as well. Not because of “value” or its “dilution” (this is pretty much what trademark is focused on), but because our identity as a broad coalition of supporter cultures is at stake, and we should care enough to protect it.
I would Incorporate and put the trademarks and patents in the corporation. Give 1 share of stock to each of the 3 supporters groups. Then create a 7 member board to oversea all activities and merchandising of Cascadia Cup. With 2 members elected by each SG and the 6 members appointing a neutral 7th member.