The First Rule Of NCAA March Madness Is You Can't Mention NCAA March Madness
from the where's-that-happening?-shhhhhh! dept
What is it with sports leagues that think they have the right to deny anyone from making factual statements? We've seen it (repeatedly) with the Olympics and we've seen it with the World Cup... and now we're seeing it with the NCAA men's basketball tournament, better known as March Madness. This week, of course, some of the games will be played in Syracuse (including, I feel the urgent need to mention, the surprise of the tournament, my alma mater Cornell), and jsl4980 was the first of a few of you to send in the news that local businesses are being told they cannot mention the fact that the tournament is being held there. No local businesses are allowed to "welcome" fans or players for the event. They can't mention the NCAA event is happening, or that we're at the "Sweet Sixteen" level.
Of course, that's all according to the NCAA, which is basically lying. They're abusing the rights that trademark law gives them to try to restrict free speech on factual information, in a misguided effort to squeeze more money out of sponsors, by pretending that only sponsors can mention the event. But trademark law does not give you blanket control over the trademarked terms -- and presenting factual information, or welcoming people to a city by mentioning an event that is absolutely happening there should not be considered trademark infringement in the slightest.
Apparently, in the past the NCAA wasn't as abusive of trademarks, but it's learned a thing or two by watching how other sporting events abuse trademark law, and now everyone seems to be bending over backwards assuming that just because the NCAA forbids something that they have the legal right to do so.
Of course, that's all according to the NCAA, which is basically lying. They're abusing the rights that trademark law gives them to try to restrict free speech on factual information, in a misguided effort to squeeze more money out of sponsors, by pretending that only sponsors can mention the event. But trademark law does not give you blanket control over the trademarked terms -- and presenting factual information, or welcoming people to a city by mentioning an event that is absolutely happening there should not be considered trademark infringement in the slightest.
Apparently, in the past the NCAA wasn't as abusive of trademarks, but it's learned a thing or two by watching how other sporting events abuse trademark law, and now everyone seems to be bending over backwards assuming that just because the NCAA forbids something that they have the legal right to do so.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Keep it up!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
PSSST!
Ahem, Northern Iowa would like a word with you please....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
SHHHHH be quiet
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
PUBLIC vs PRIVATE
who sold out the rights of a Public event, to become a Private event?
Isnt the Game in a PUBLIC facility? PAID for by Tax dollars?
I dont think they BOUGHT out the facility. DID they?
Did they buy out EVERY AVAILABLE room and BED in the area?? Then sell access to them at 10times the PRICE??
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: PSSST!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I gotta a basket ball jones... ohh ohh ohh.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
or how about...
"Welcome to Warch Wadness!"
See NCAA, it's totally different. Can't sue me now!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: PSSST!
Bring it. They were a 9 seed. Cornell is a 12 seed. :)
But, yes, a fair number of underdog upsets.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: PUBLIC vs PRIVATE
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
NCAA March Madness
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Baseball, too
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So Much for Publicity
The worst was the Olympics. It is an event that is supposed to evoke an image of being shared by the world, when in fact it's own by a couple of media companies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I really wish more people would take these people to Court and stand up for their rights
To think that a business can't put the words "March Madness" is ridiculous in every sense of the word
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ok, THEY CANT DO ANYTHING.
2. these are players that DID NOT sign contracts(if they were smart) with the NCAA to display their images. THEY are public people.
3. Its at a PUBLIC location. City/state/feds PAID FOR IT.
4. this is a PUBLIC event. The HALL should not be LOANED to them to make MONEY, the CITY/STATE should sell the tickets..
ALSO consider...THEY ARE OWNED BY CBS..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The NCAA appropriated existing terms for the name and the signature round of this tourney- March Madness, Sweet Sixteen both predate the tourney. The shouldn't have to tight a hold on these except when used for Basketball. The next thing you know is that they will go after any alliteration at all.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
see this is where the
As in the Ryerson post, this is exactly the kind of case huge multi billion dollar settlements that either bankrupt or severely harm the offending corporations for the good of society at large NEED to occur. If there is no cost to stupidity, stupidity will repeat itself for ever.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
would somebody please . . . WAS Re: see this is where the
can i get a copy editor please ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"March Madness" is the NCAA's olympic effort at a world cup in a college teacup
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Incredible...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
????
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: PUBLIC vs PRIVATE
PUBLIC FUNDS, PUBLIC PLACE..
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment