The OFFICIAL Gold Coast Sharks campaign!

[Leagueworld]

You clearly have no idea of business and trademark registration then. Continue to skip along your ignorant journey. Anyone who disagrees with such a fact is ignorant, yes it is true that the AFL team could buy out the Gold Coast Sharks name in theory but the touch team need only tell them to take a hike and they have NO ground to stand on.

On top of such the Cronulla Sharks can challenge any trademark similarities making the branding virtually impossible to acheive because they also own the 'Sharks' branding. Even though I am not an AFL fan I like the sound of GC Sharks but it is NEVER going to happen. No petition will change that.

 

[Fire]

You clearly have no idea of business and trademark registration then. Continue to skip along your ignorant journey. Anyone who disagrees with such a fact is ignorant, yes it is true that the AFL team could buy out the Gold Coast Sharks name in theory but the touch team need only tell them to take a hike and they have NO ground to stand on.

Oh, so you WERE talking about the touch football team then. Well, I was concerned for a moment.

First off, we are assuming that they have the name registered. I am unconvinced they would.

And if you think any community sporting team would refuse a free $10,000 for the use of their mascot, then you are delusional

On top of such the Cronulla Sharks can challenge any trademark similarities making the branding virtually impossible to acheive because they also own the 'Sharks' branding. Even though I am not an AFL fan I like the sound of GC Sharks but it is NEVER going to happen. No petition will change that.

Cronulla Sharks can do no such thing. Like how Richmond said nothing when the Melbourne Tigers were established. Or a few years ago how StGeorge/Illawara said nothing when the Souths Dragons were formed. Cronulla do not own the noun shark, and unless the can prove that it effects their branding, then they have no leg to stand on. And as the precedents show, there are no such marketing issues.

You are almost certainly right in your claim that the GCS will never happen. What I, and others are doing is merely criticising the BS being bandied around about their issue.

 

[T4P]

i reckon either gold coast sharks or gold coast thunder
im leaning a bit towards sharks tho
dont care that much about it

 

[Leagueworld]

I have no idea whether it is the touch side or not, a touch side does have that identity. What I do know is that the registration for the business of Gold Coast Sharks and trademark IS taken. I actually suspect that it is the NRL that might hold it as there was talk some years ago of Cronulla Sharks moving to the Gold Coast.

The case with Richmond and Wests Tigers (having Balmain as partner) is totally different as both have held the identity well before the intensity of trademark and business registration law in the present environment. In theory Richmond could have challenged the registration of Melbourne Tigers (as could've St George) as WAS done with Sydney Kings and the Auckland Kings (who adapted and went for FC Kingz) A company only needs to challenge the identity saying that it would interfere with its identity (thus marketing business etc), the Cronulla Sharks for instance could likely make such a case as they are the 'Sharks' that are known in SQ not the potential new identity.

 

[Fire]

I have no idea whether it is the touch side or not, a touch side does have that identity. What I do know is that the registration for the business of Gold Coast Sharks and trademark IS taken. I actually suspect that it is the NRL that might hold it as there was talk some years ago of Cronulla Sharks moving to the Gold Coast.

You are only adding speculation.

The case with Richmond and Wests Tigers (having Balmain as partner) is totally different as both have held the identity well before the intensity of trademark and business registration law in the present environment.

Stop retorting arguments you made up for me. No one mentioned Wests Tigers.

In theory Richmond could have challenged the registration of Melbourne Tigers (as could've St George) as WAS done with Sydney Kings and the Auckland Kings (who adapted and went for FC Kingz) A company only needs to challenge the identity saying that it would interfere with its identity (thus marketing business etc), the Cronulla Sharks for instance could likely make such a case as they are the 'Sharks' that are known in SQ not the potential new identity.

They are two different teams playing two different sports in two different leagues in two different states. I would be interested in knowing if your Kings example was actually taken to court. It could very well be the case that Auckland couldn’t be bothered with the process.

With the new GC's team having connections with Southport, they have an additional argument that they have a historical entitlement for the use of that mascot on the GC, giving them more entitlement for that identity than Cronulla.

 

[Leagueworld]

My only speculation is a question of WHO not THAT Gold Coast Sharks IS a registered business name. That can be found out by going on the www.abr.business.gov.au/ website. (actually http://www.search.asic.gov.au/gns001.html is an easier option)

Don't you hate it when facts get in the road. You are right about South Port in one possibility, they might be able to rebrand themselves Gold Coast Sharks and argue it IF the present business register deregistered but it could likely still be challenged.

The same has also been the case with the Gold Coast Dolphins (now Titans) bid which was challenged by Redcliffe Dolphins and were given legal advice that they would lose a challenge against Redcliffe. I am unsure about the Kings case going to court but it was enough of a problem to not bother. The same IS the case with the Sharks idea.

The case of Richmond and Balmain Tigers has been brought up numerous times through discussions - fact is times/natonal coverage and media is now a different beast and registration/trademarks reflect that.

As said GC Sharks is the best sounding but it is not going to happen. The GC 17 bid team have already made that clear. It is for legal reasons not for lack of support for the suggestion.

 

[Fire]

My only speculation is a question of WHO not THAT Gold Coast Sharks IS a registered business name. That can be found out by going on the www.abr.business.gov.au/ website. (actually http://www.search.asic.gov.au/gns001.html is an easier option).

You are speculating that the NRL holds this name. You admit that. Im glad we agree.

Don't you hate it when facts get in the road.

No, on the contrary if I am wrong I appreciate being corrected. Otherwise I am doomed to live in ignorance. However, I never argued with you that the name had been registered. I’m pointing out that you are speculating.

You are right about South Port in one possibility, they might be able to rebrand themselves Gold Coast Sharks and argue it IF the present business register deregistered but it could likely still be challenged.

It would be a valid legal argument. If this argument fell through then North Melbourne could sue the ARL for branding their national team the 'Kangaroos' in 1994. North officially adopted the nickname in 1950. But the Kangaroos are allowed to keep their nickname because it has a strong historical link with the club that goes back much further then the official adoption in 1994.

The same has also been the case with the Gold Coast Dolphins (now Titans) bid which was challenged by Redcliffe Dolphins and were given legal advice that they would lose a challenge against Redcliffe.

I fail to see how this is in any way similar. Did the titans have a historical connection to the moniker 'dolphins'? If not, then how on Earth is this similar?

I am unsure about the Kings case going to court but it was enough of a problem to not bother. The same IS the case with the Sharks idea.

No, unless it was tested in court, it is not only not the same, it utterly irrelevant.

The case of Richmond and Balmain Tigers has been brought up numerous times through discussions - fact is times/natonal coverage and media is now a different beast and registration/trademarks reflect that.

You are the only one to bring up the Balmain tigers. Please drop the issue now. It's so obvious.

As said GC Sharks is the best sounding but it is not going to happen.

irrelevant to this discussion.

The GC 17 bid team have already made that clear. It is for legal reasons not for lack of support for the suggestion.

No, its due to neither. The suns, marlins, stingrays etc. all have 'legal issues' identical to the sharks. But that isn't stopping them perusing them. That’s my entire point.

 

[T4P]

Some Ideas:
Gold Coast Thunder
Gold Coast Lightning
Gold Coast Cyclones
Gold Coast Breakers
Gold Coast Surf
Gold Coast Heat (cheap american copy)
Gold Coast Burn
Gold Coast Destroyers
Gold Coast Terminators
Gold Coast Sharks - doesn't sound right...
Gold Coast Magpies (just to get up Eddie McGuire's nose)
Gold Coast Metermaids

I reckon the best of those are thunder/lightning, cyclones
Marlins ROFL what a joke...

 

[numchuks]

The name 'Gold Coast Sharks' is owned by another business (RL I believe). There is NO chance of the new AFL team being called GC Sharks. It is that simple. No amount of petitioning will change that, it is a legal issue. It has nothing to do with marketing reasons etc. It is a clear and simple legal reason, no different than the new AFL team trying to call itself The Gold Coast Titans, it can't happen irrelevant of what some people want.

Errrm, GC17 has already said if there is overwhelming support from the community then they'll add the Sharks name to the list.

So come one everyone, lets get behind the Sharks name and push it

 

[Fire]

Errrm, GC17 has already said if there is overwhelming support from the community then they'll add the Sharks name to the list.

So come one everyone, lets get behind the Sharks name and push it

They did?! when did they say this?

 

[Leagueworld]

You are clutching at straws

FACT - the name is taken - unless that changes that is the way it is
FACT - there is little argument for the GC Sharks AFL name in any historical regard. Southport is linked to but is NOT the new AFL team. NO legal argument when it comes against other brand holders.
FACT - All the cases with Titans/Dolphins - Kings are relevant. They clearly show that a new identity rarely will win against a present brand EVEN when the team is not in the same area (eg. Redcliffe) NO legal counsel wanted to take on this issue as it can't easily be won. It NEVER even made court because everybody knows who will win. GC17 know this, they are not stupid.
FACT - the ARL Kangaroos have been commonly known as such since 1908 - in opposition to the Wallabies Brand as you have said. The KEY difference is that the Australian Kangaroos have always been that, they are the same organisation. South Port is linked to but is NOT GC17.
FACT - the Sharks have been blotted out like the Dolphins, Pirates and Cougars. These are all held by present or past sporting clubs on the GC. That has been stated by GC17. There are NO major legal issues with the other options. (suns etc.)

The only case of present sporting identity raised is the Stingrays and that is held already by TWO teams without dispute. One is the Gridiron team and the other the junior Aussie Rules team - there is thus already a team willing to give its permission to use the moniker, do you think junior AFL would not allow it?

The balmain reference was not simply to this discussion but 'discussions' on this forum as said in my post. This is not the only discussion that has brought up the Sharks option.

FACT - GC Sharks - not an option.

 

[numchuks]

They did?! when did they say this?

It was around the time they announced the short list.

I'm pretty sure I read that part in article on here somewhere.

 

[Fire]

You are clutching at straws

Are you talking to me? you seem flustered.

FACT - the name is taken - unless that changes that is the way it is

This fact was never in dispute. however, interestingly enough, your conclusion is wrong.

There is no such thing as the "Fremantle Dockers". There was a legal issue (again never tested in court) about a brand of clothing who were unhappy with the use of the Docker. The AFL agreed not to call them the Dockers.

Nowhere, on Fremantles logo, website, anywhere, will you see them refereed to as the Dockers in any capacity.

Same could happen with the sharks. It's called a loop hole. But this is assuming you need one, which is assuming that the owners of the license cant be bought out, and assuming that they would be willing to challenge it, and assuming that their challenge was successful. Its all very vague, wouldn’t you agree?

FACT - there is little argument for the GC Sharks AFL name in any historical regard.

I would be making damned sure i had the qualifications before making statements like that as fact champ.

FACT - All the cases with Titans/Dolphins - Kings are relevant. They clearly show that a new identity rarely will win against a present brand EVEN when the team is not in the same area (eg. Redcliffe) NO legal counsel wanted to take on this issue as it can't easily be won. It NEVER even made court because everybody knows who will win. GC17 know this, they are not stupid.

On a case by case basis, there are examples that are relevant. However, cases that were never challenged (like the ones you list) are not. At all. There are many reasons why people don't want to take these issues to court. Money. Time is a big one. If you have a team being established next year, you can't afford to have lengthy legal processes. The AFL has plenty of time for this process should any complications arise.

You are using specious reasoning when you say "they didn't take it to court, so they must have known they will lose". Beware of such reasoning. It is responsible for 90% of the world's foolishness.

FACT - the Sharks have been blotted out like the Dolphins, Pirates and Cougars. These are all held by present or past sporting clubs on the GC. That has been stated by GC17. There are NO major legal issues with the other options. (suns etc.)

Wrong. As has been pointed out, Suns, Marlins, Stingrays, all have legal issues. The same legal issues as the Sharks. Which is my entire point. If its not an issue for the stingrays, then it's not an issue with the Sharks.

The only case of present sporting identity raised is the Stingrays and that is held already by TWO teams without dispute. One is the Gridiron team and the other the junior Aussie Rules team - there is thus already a team willing to give its permission to use the moniker, do you think junior AFL would not allow it?

This makes no sense at all.

The balmain reference was not simply to this discussion but 'discussions' on this forum as said in my post. This is not the only discussion that has brought up the Sharks option.

You are still talking about Balmain.

FACT - GC Sharks - not an option.

Yes, and this point is as irrelevant as it was 10 posts ago.

 

[Leagueworld]

Has anybody EVER heard of an Aussie Rules team called the 'GC Sharks'? No not me, you? That is because it has NEVER existed. Your, "don't be to sure" doesn't change fact. There is no historical link. Sorry. Denial.

Fremantle option is a possibility - Call them GCFC (might however be challenged by soccer team) HOWEVER the example you give only stands to reflect the FACT that NO ONE is willing to challenge a standing brand claim because the lawyers know it can't be beaten. There is no 'vague' element going on, a brand challenge doesn't work, so lawyers (as cited in numerous examples now, even by you with Dockers) won't challenge. You give a clear option for loophole but that is not vague. Fremantle still can't use the words 'Fremantle Dockers' on any clothing.

90 percent of the worlds foolishness - wow you must be a statistical genius. Didn't you know that 76.89 percent of stats are made up on the spot. I am assuming you are a legal trademarks lawyer? You know better than numerous legal teams that have said it is to hard to be done.

Come on, I can list the legal reason for Sharks, Dolphins, Cougars, Pirates not being listed. They are present and past GC sporting identities. They hold the business and trademark registrations or the right to challenge. And the legal reasons for the others? YEP that's right there are none.

And if you can't understand the difference with the Stingrays you are an idiot. A present trademark, business registration must give permission to use a present branding/identity. The junior AFL team will, that is a given. The others clearly won't as has been shown by GC17 reluctance to go with the most popular choice of the fans (in the GC Sharks) This was seen with the Brisbane Lions Soccer club which was paid off to use their identity by the AFL. Still an option for the AFL in the GC.

 

[Fire]

Leagueworld, please read my post and understand the points I am making BEFORE responding. You are only repeating yourself on every single point.

I could copy and paste answers from my previous post to answer everything you just said.