Under Armour Demands Tiny Clothier 'Armor And Glory' Change Name Or Face Legal Siege

from the armor-all dept

Under Armour, the clothing brand built on the idea that my belly fat should be clung to by a shirt while I shoot hoops in my backyard, has built up quite a reputation for itself as a trademark bully. To go along with the fun story of its battle against Ass Armor, Under Armour is notorious for trademarking roughly all the things when it comes to sportswear and equipment, and has always had a liberal idea of just how much control the law allows it to have over the use of the word “armor.” Most times, very little public attention is whipped up. But now they’re picking a fight with God.

In 2013, a Bible-quoting high school football champ named Terrance Jackson, upset that most of the clothing options for his 3-year-old son were covered in skulls and crossbones, decided to start his own “inspirational apparel” company with a scripture-inspired name, Armor & Glory. It recently received some major attention from America’s second-biggest sportswear empire, Under Armour, which demanded the small Maryland company change its name or face all-out legal war.

“It’s trademark bullying at its finest. I’m the little kid in the group and they’re trying to kick dirt on my new shoes,” said Jackson, 37, who said the name came to him one morning, from “the full armor of God” cited in Ephesians 6:11. “When God gave this [name] to me, I never thought once about those guys. We don’t even spell it like them.”

Indeed, much as Ass Armor did, Armor & Glory’s name doesn’t include the “u,” unlike Under Armour. Which is only a minor point, actually, because the chief test here is customer confusion and brand identity, and it takes a more imaginative mind than mine to think up exactly how a company selling a few hundred shirts is going to be mistaken for the clothing company currently chasing Nike for the sportswear crown. More troubling still is the nature of Under Armour’s request. The company’s legal representation requested not only that all of Armor & Glory’s inventory be destroyed, but that it would also have to hand over its domain, profits, and $100k in damages and attorneys’ fees.

That would equate to about every last dollar the company has ever made, since its 2013 inception. More interesting, for me at least, is that the company’s core audience is Christian athletes wearing the gear in part due to the Christianity-inspired names and slogans. Lawyers for Under Armour have gone so far as to state that if Armor & Glory refuses to cease using the bible-inspired name, the result will be “an expensive and time-consuming legal battle.” A more bullying statement is difficult to compose. But Jackson, thus far at least, isn’t backing down. Why, you ask?

Ed Tomlin, Jackson’s partner and a former director of football development for Under Armour (who says he left on good terms), says “it’s a matter of principle and a matter of faith.” The name, he added, “was inspired by God. … To turn our backs now would be like we were being disobedient.”

How about that for a fun First Amendment test? If anything can whip up public support in a David v. Goliath legal battle, it’s the injection of some honest to goodness bible-thumping. In fact, Armor & Glory has reportedly increased sales and brand-awareness due to the threat from Under Armour, making it all the more silly for the larger company to have engaged in this silly bit of bullying to begin with.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: armor and glory, under armour

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Under Armour Demands Tiny Clothier 'Armor And Glory' Change Name Or Face Legal Siege”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

You’re as silly as that silly Imam on Youtube saying that Gen 19:30-36 will cause Christians to run away from Moslems.

The cross is the remembrance and recognition that the Innocent and Perfect One died for all. The Skull and Bones is the sign of those who cared only for themselves and were more than willing to kill all who crossed them.

So yes there is a significant difference between the two.

RealityBites (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Wrong on all counts

100,000’s were crucified on crosses, only the christians glorify a method of execution, drink the blood of their god and generally act like scanky vampires most of the time.

How do you think Yoko Lennon would like you wearing jewellery depicting a pistol, then telling her you are remembering john by it. Its beyond creepy, its like the religious are out of their minds.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Wrong on all counts

How shallow is your understanding of the significance of what and why of the crucifixion of the only Innocent One to have ever existed and the absolute Victory that was achieved in that day. How shallow is your understanding of the Passover Feast that He initiated to celebrate the Victory achieved or the significance of the symbols of the New Life He created.

Reality will bite when He returns again not as the suffering Servant but as the Lion of Judah, as the Conquering King of Kings, as the Sovereign Lord of Lords, and as Almighty God over all. The nations will rage but fail. He will demonstrate again to all that the Enemy of mankind has been defeated and all will see His Glory and Majesty. Great is His Name and Holy is He.

Sheogorath (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Wrong on all counts

Reality will bite when He returns again […] as Almighty God over all.
Actually, Jesus isn’t God, as he said himself when he declared himself to be the Son of Man. As the following Wikipedia article states: The expression “the Son of man” occurs 81 times in the Greek text of the four Canonical gospels , and is used only in the sayings of Jesus. You know, it’s Christians like you that give the rest of us a bad reputation.

TDR says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wrong on all counts

Wrong. Son of Man is another name for God. It, like Son of God, indicates that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. He also referred to himself specifically as the I Am, which was the sacred Hebrew name for God. In so doing, he was saying he was the same God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush, the God who called himself that same I Am. AC 25, I’m sorry about the experiences you had, but please keep in mind that Christians aren’t perfect and none of us are to judge each other. Honest Christians understand that the faith has no meaning if it’s forced. It’s why we were given free will.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Wrong on all counts

Nonsense, what could possibly be coercive about being told that you’ll be tortured for eternity if you don’t spend your entire life brown-nosing the divine posterior and praising them for being just so very merciful and loving by creating and/or allowing the existence of a place of eternal torment and not throwing everyone in there just for laughs?

What next, are you going to claim that a mobster telling a shopkeeper that unless they want their store burned down or their kneecaps broken they’d better pay ‘protection’ is coercion, rather than a simple, generous act of informing someone of the consequences of their actions?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Wrong on all counts

Oh but you see they aren’t judging anyone, their god is, and it’s just a complete coincidence that everything that they don’t like is also something their god doesn’t like.

If they don’t like homosexuals, then funny thing, neither does their god.

If they don’t care whether someone’s homosexual or not, would you look at that, neither does their god.

If they think those of other faiths, or even worse, those of no faith, are at best deluded, but more likely horrible people, then their god is right there next to them, backing them up.

If they don’t really have a problem with people of different or no faiths, then by pure coincidence, neither does their god.

Like I said, they don’t judge anyone, as that would be wrong, they just happen to agree with the judgements passed out by their particular version of god, and it’s a complete and totally coincidence that those judgements always match their personal opinions on any given subject.


Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wrong on all counts

I fail to see how he gives Christians a bad name. Someone make completely false statements and he called the on it. Yea, maybe could have been a bit nicer, but he spoke the truth.

As for Jesus not being God, I know some believe that. Others, like myself, believe the 3 are 1, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Differences like that should not divide us though as we will find out for sure when we get there.

Machin Shin (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Wrong on all counts

I think the point being made was, Why would you want to wear a representation of a device used to brutally execute thousands of people? One of those people having been your God?

When you stop and think about it, using the cross really is a very weird symbol. After all, someone being executed on a cross was a very common thing for the time. What makes Christ special was that he did not stay dead.

The cross is like the Roman electric chair or gallows. I can’t imagine anyone choosing those to honor someone who died from them….

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Wrong on all counts

… its like the religious are out of their minds.

They’re looking up (to “heaven”) with their eyes closed, mumbling under their breath as they imagine a “spirit” which created the universe and will hear their words, and (maybe) do something for them.

If that’s not out “of their minds”, I don’t know what is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Wrong on all counts

And your looking to man for answers is somehow better? Have you ever really looked into all the holes in the theory of evolution? They can’t find the missing link so now they say that evolution goes in spurts and those spurts are to short to leave a fossil record. So they create one unproven theory to fill a hole in another unproven theory.

Do you know why we are looking for life on Mars? They aren’t just looking for life, they are looking for the origins of life because they haven’t found it here. They figure the planet without life must be the source of life on the planet with life. Talk about being out of your mind.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wrong on all counts

The theory of evolution for atheists isn’t the equivalent of the bible for Christians. Christians who pretend that atheists are trying to look for “salvation” in the theory of evolution are applying their mentality to a non-religious concept.

The theory of evolution, like everything else in science, is subject to adjustment when new data is gathered. The reality is that humans will never truly know what the exact origin of life is. We won’t get answers to the vast majority of the questions we have and we won’t even ask most of the questions that are possible to ask because we won’t know enough to know what to ask.

When you poke holes in the theory of evolution, it’s not the same as if an atheist asserts that they’ve proven that god doesn’t exist or that something in the bible didn’t happen according to the biblical record. Science is just a way of looking at the world and adjusting as necessary when previous theories are disproved.

Religion, on the other hand, is a way of blocking out any evidence or logic that might refute your beliefs and strictly adhering to “the word of god” without regard for anything that might contradict it.

In the end, it doesn’t matter if evolution happened the way a lot of scientists currently believe it did. If you look at the history of scientific research, it’s a history of theories being postulated, challenged, rewritten, overturned, refuted, and replaced. Likely most of what we think is scientifically “true” right now will be clarified or updated or disproved or replaced with new scientific research within 100 years (and that too will experience the same process).

You won’t bring people to god by pretending like disproving any point of a human-originated concept refutes all of atheistic belief, anymore than they can refute any point of a human-originated religious belief and snap you out of your blindness. That’s something you’ll have to come to on your own. Good luck with that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Wrong on all counts

Religion, on the other hand, is a way of blocking out any evidence or logic that might refute your beliefs

Thats just it, that evidence hasn’t been found. So you expect people to abandon their views based on evidence yet the evidence isn’t there. As far as me abandoning my beliefs, since I believe in the one true God it isn’t going to happen. I do hope you will investigate the bible for your own sake though. You will be surprised what you learn as there is far more evidence in the geological record that the bible is true than there is that evolution is true.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Wrong on all counts

Yes, it has been and is actually, it’s just creationists refuse to admit it because they seem to be under the mistaken belief that for their god to be true, evolution can’t be. In addition, if any creationist(s) were actually able to ‘disprove’ evolution, one thing would happen, and one thing wouldn’t.

Would Happen:
They, whether individual or group, would become famous worldwide, in scientific circles and out of them, for showing how a universally accepted scientific theory was wrong, either in part or entirely.

Would Not Happen:
The idea of creationism would become the default position, and ‘win by default’, or even gain any credibility or weight to it’s arguments at all.

Evolution, in it’s entirety, could be shown to be completely and utterly wrong, and the act of doing so would not, in any way shape or form, ‘validate’ creationism.

If A is true, that does not mean B must be false, and vice-versa; the ‘evolution or creationism’ argument is a false dichotomy, as it assumes only two possible choices, that of ‘evolution is true, therefore creationism is false’, or ‘evolution is false, therefore creationism is true’, which is simply not the case.

(1)Evolution could be true, and creationism could be false. (2)Creationism could be true, and evolution could be false. (3)Both could be true, in which case a deity/deities does/do exist, and evolution is how species have changed over time, whether through their direct ‘intervention’ or not. (4)Both could be false, in which evolution is flawed/wrong and not how species change over time, and no deity/deities exist.

I could four possibilities there, and I wouldn’t be surprised if I’m missing some, so the idea that there’s only two possibilities, and that if one is wrong the other has to be right is just a little absurd.

Even a great many religious people agree that evolution does not conflict with their religious views, and has withstood the scientific rigors and demonstrating itself to be true, or at the very least the most accurate model of explaining the change of species over time.

Also, funny thing about telling someone to ‘go read the bible’, if they happen to be atheist, odds are good they know it as well, if not better than you do.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Wrong on all counts

Also, funny thing about telling someone to ‘go read the bible’, if they happen to be atheist, odds are good they know it as well, if not better than you do.

Not many people are lucky enough to have been born of atheist parents. Most of us have to fight our way out. Some are so scarred by the religious experience, they never finish that fight.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Wrong on all counts

In your vast experience, have you found any evidence in support of the theory of gravity? It is, after all, only a theory and has not yet been “proven” to actually exist. Just like any other theory, it is subject to scientific inquiry not unlike any other scientific theory.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Wrong on all counts

You ignored the logic part of the assertion. Evidence also doesn’t have to be physical, scientific evidence. By definition, science can only examine that which is natural and empirically observable. Religion is by definition supernatural and not subject to measurable observation.

But the logic part is important. I spent the first 20 years of my life as a Christian and even went to a Christian college for a few years. I don’t need to read the bible more than I already had. My life is a lot less stressful since.

This forum will get too long if we try to debate every little issue with such a belief, but a simple one is the internal logical inconsistency of the original sin myth. God created the earth and man and the garden and satan and placed man in proximity to the serpent and the tree but didn’t give him the knowledge of good and evil, only a warning. He created the situation whereby man was tempted by the serpent. If you were to stick a couple of ignorant young children in a room with a snake and it then bites them, you are morally responsible for what happened, especially if you’re omniscient and can see the future and know it’s going to happen. Therefore, if the original sin myth were true, god would be responsible for original sin, not man. Yet god condemns man for it.

As for expecting you to drop your faith, I don’t. I think expecting others to change their beliefs because of what you personally espouse is arrogant. Evangelism is imperialism of belief. It doesn’t matter to me if you continue to believe or not anymore than it matters whether you believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny in spite of the evidence that they don’t actually exist.

tqk (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Wrong on all counts

They figure the planet without life must be the source of life on the planet with life.

Haven’t you heard? Mars is the real Atlantis! There was a catastrophe there and the atmosphere started bleeding away, so they migrated here. We’re all decended from Martians! That’s why the geological record can’t prove origins. We’ll find it on Mars! Wait’ll you hear about the asteroid belt! It’s the result of a war between von Neuman machines and destroyed a planet between Mars & Jupiter.

Yuk, yuk. Yeah, I just made that up. Well, me and David Brin’s “Existence”. It’s just as plausible as the BS in the Bible or Koran, maybe moreso.

Anonymous Coward says:

Religion is complicated.

[citation needed]

But seriously, all the hate on the cross is so edgy. I’m not Christian, I’m not even particularly religious, but I understand that the crucifix is a symbol of sacrifice- Jesus died to save the rest of humanity, and self-sacrifice, selflessness, these are values I can appreciate, regardless of whether I give a bleep about Christianity’s logical consistency or lack thereof.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Religion is complicated.

For bonus points, I believe in evolution because that’s what science suggests is reasonable, not because I’m being edgy and wearing a fedora.

For extra bonus points, I for one am eager to hear more about a biblically-inspired legal smackdown, despite aforementioned not caring too much about Jaysus.

For extra extra bonus points, I’m pretty sure anyone trying to convince people here to believe in the Lord Almighty or that they’re a bunch of church-manipulated chumps or whatever is wasting their time. I don’t think anyone wants to be convinced.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Religion is complicated.

For extra extra bonus points, I’m pretty sure anyone trying to convince people here to believe in the Lord Almighty or that they’re a bunch of church-manipulated chumps or whatever is wasting their time. I don’t think anyone wants to be convinced.

You’re sure right about that. I can’t imagine anyone would possibly convert from one side to the other based on a forum argument.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...