Comments on: Zuffa and Cage Rage in trademark dispute

By: Yone

Yone — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:28:53 +0000

PS: IIRC the last Contenders show advert on TV described it as “mixed martial arts”.

By: Yone

Yone — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:27:51 +0000

The latest adverts don’t mention or show “ultimate fighting”, and AFAIK nor did the last Contenders show advert. See here >

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8B_o_szmEPQ&mode=related&search=

By: GassedOut

GassedOut — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:24:15 +0000

Does everyone remember when Bill Gates tried to copyright the year 1995?

I work in an industry where a brand name is also a reference term, and the plaintiff lost that case.

It happened with Zippers, it happened with Xerox, and in every single case, the plaintiff if there was one lost the case.

Sorry Zuffa. That’s historical.

By: grafdog

grafdog — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 11:03:07 +0000

Can Cage Rage just refer to their brand as penultimate fighting?

By: John @ Fullkontakt

John @ Fullkontakt — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:54:38 +0000

MMA Game is correct. I remember seeing that ad too, thinking how strange it was that they used the term “ultimate fighting”.

Thanks to the wonders of the Internet, you can check it out yourself: http://youtube.com/watch?v=45n0mafdmV8

By: The Gaijin

The Gaijin — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 03:06:52 +0000

You cannot trademark/copyright/brand name a word that is of common use and for that matter was in common use far before you started using it.

How could you trademark “submission” as a “logo type brand name”?? It’s like me trying to get rights to “high kick” – it’s not going to happen.

As for the “ultimate fighting” thing, you guys are right…if it can be shown in the future that they didn’t try to enforce their brand name/trademark of “ultimate fighting” they’d be estopped from doing so afterwards.

By: Jeremy (not that Jeremy)

Jeremy (not that Jeremy) — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:48:04 +0000

MMA Game, if your rendering of the ad is correct, then that’s a pretty much open and shut case of introducing brand confusion. The only question would be whether UFC had a valid trademark at the time the ads ran. I think that the fact that UFC had held an event in the UK previously, combined with the generally cordial legal relationship between the US and the UK would tend to influence the court even if they hadn’t successfully applied for their trademark in the UK.

By: 45 Huddle

45 Huddle — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:24:46 +0000

Just like with the no drug testing at UFC 70, this has everything to do with the lawyers and nothing to do with Dana White and the people running the fights.

I remember after the no drug testing at UFC 70, people were blaming White for ducking drug testing. Yet when Ratner was questioned, he admitted that they were going to drug tests and it was the lawyers who said no at the last minute.

The same thing goes for this copyright stuff. The lawyers know that they need to defend these things in court, or they could lose their rights.

As for the term “submission”, the UFC isn’t trying to sue other companies for saying a fighter was caught in a submission. It is more as a logo type of brand name.

And rival promoters are just scum a lot of times. They know they are breaking the law and do it anyways.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:23:32 +0000

I’m curious what goes through rival promoters minds. If you know Zuffa has a history of aggressively protecting their trademarks, why would you go ahead and used trademarked terms anyway? It is like they’re begging to be sued.

By: Ultimo Santa

Ultimo Santa — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:15:48 +0000

UFC should trademark the phrase “He’s really fighting defensively and not doing much”.

I don’t know how many times a commentator said that during the last PPV, but I bet they were thinking it.

A lot.