Insider upper deck/mlb update?

[Crash Davis]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

 

[ChasHawk]

My question would be if UD does this what about Topps, Panini, Press Pass, ITG, or any other company doing just negotiations with the players association and not the league itself. UD might shoot themselves in the foot possibly in my opinion. Only time will tell.
Don

I don't think UD has to worry about any of them. In my opinion, UD does the best high end cards out of all the companies.

Agree with this.

Also, it's not as if any of the other companies can just "get" a license with the NFLPA or NHLPA. The respective PAs would have to agree to it.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

I'll make the lame joke. No, I won't. I won't mention the holiday inn express thing.

Does anyone have a link to either the original complaint or the alleged rebuttal? What is listed is a shotgun defense list of every typical trademark defense tailored for the BBC market...

 

[Crash Davis]

[quote="Crash Davis":3vjddv34]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

I'll make the lame joke. No, I won't. I won't mention the holiday inn express thing.

Does anyone have a link to either the original complaint or the alleged rebuttal? What is listed is a shotgun defense list of every typical trademark defense tailored for the BBC market...[/quote:3vjddv34]

Jeff - in your opinion, does the fact that Upper Deck willingly, and without restraint, paid MLBP this licensing fee for the past 20 years hurt their case?

 

[cgilmo]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

No, I am not. But I have read many opinions and talked to many people.


It's just an opinion, take it for what you will.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Jeff N.":34s4zl9d][quote="Crash Davis":34s4zl9d]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

I'll make the lame joke. No, I won't. I won't mention the holiday inn express thing.

Does anyone have a link to either the original complaint or the alleged rebuttal? What is listed is a shotgun defense list of every typical trademark defense tailored for the BBC market...[/quote:34s4zl9d]

Jeff - in your opinion, does the fact that Upper Deck willingly, and without restraint, paid MLBP this licensing fee for the past 20 years hurt their case?[/quote:34s4zl9d]

I think so. If I were MLBP's attorney, I'd love to have UD's rep on the stand and ask that if you didn't feel as though you needed the MLBP licensing, why did you willingly pay for it from 1989 to 2009, and then prepare a presentation/application to have the licensing renewed for 2010?

 

[cgilmo]

[quote="Crash Davis":14wwipth][quote="Jeff N.":14wwipth][quote="Crash Davis":14wwipth]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

I'll make the lame joke. No, I won't. I won't mention the holiday inn express thing.

Does anyone have a link to either the original complaint or the alleged rebuttal? What is listed is a shotgun defense list of every typical trademark defense tailored for the BBC market...[/quote:14wwipth]

Jeff - in your opinion, does the fact that Upper Deck willingly, and without restraint, paid MLBP this licensing fee for the past 20 years hurt their case?[/quote:14wwipth]

I think so. If I were MLBP's attorney, I'd love to have UD's rep on the stand and ask that if you didn't feel as though you needed the MLBP licensing, why did you willingly pay for it from 1989 to 2009, and then prepare a presentation/application to have the licensing renewed for 2010?[/quote:14wwipth]


All he has to say is, "We hadn't explored the option to go unlicensed."

 

[Bob Loblaw]

[quote="Crash Davis":385q1eyq][quote="Jeff N.":385q1eyq][quote="Crash Davis":385q1eyq]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

I'll make the lame joke. No, I won't. I won't mention the holiday inn express thing.

Does anyone have a link to either the original complaint or the alleged rebuttal? What is listed is a shotgun defense list of every typical trademark defense tailored for the BBC market...

Jeff - in your opinion, does the fact that Upper Deck willingly, and without restraint, paid MLBP this licensing fee for the past 20 years hurt their case?[/quote:385q1eyq]

I think so. If I were MLBP's attorney, I'd love to have UD's rep on the stand and ask that if you didn't feel as though you needed the MLBP licensing, why did you willingly pay for it from 1989 to 2009, and then prepare a presentation/application to have the licensing renewed for 2010?[/quote:385q1eyq]


All he has to say is, "We hadn't explored the option to go unlicensed."[/quote:385q1eyq]

"And why not, Mr. UD representative? I mean, here you are, paying $1.5 million per year to MLBP for the right to utilize the logos and emblems every year for 20 years, an outlay of $30 MILLION DOLLARS, and your company had never explored the possibility of eliminating that substantial cost, a cost that if eliminated would have allowed you to increase your yearly revenue by 30%? And you stand here today, before this jury, stating that it was an option you simply hadn't explored?"

 

[pigskincardboard]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

No, I am not. But I have read many opinions and talked to many people.


It's just an opinion, take it for what you will.

I know I see an Upper Deck Banner which means, regardless of your intent/character/best-human-being-ever qualities, I am not listening to a word that you say.

 

[cgilmo]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

No, I am not. But I have read many opinions and talked to many people.


It's just an opinion, take it for what you will.

I know I see an Upper Deck Banner which means, regardless of your intent/character/best-human-being-ever qualities, I am not listening to a word that you say.

And that's fine, you are welcome to do that.

I personally don't give a damn what you think about anything.

 

[RL24]

[quote="Crash Davis":393p96t1][quote="Jeff N.":393p96t1][quote="Crash Davis":393p96t1]

Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

I'll make the lame joke. No, I won't. I won't mention the holiday inn express thing.

Does anyone have a link to either the original complaint or the alleged rebuttal? What is listed is a shotgun defense list of every typical trademark defense tailored for the BBC market...

Jeff - in your opinion, does the fact that Upper Deck willingly, and without restraint, paid MLBP this licensing fee for the past 20 years hurt their case?[/quote:393p96t1]

I think so. If I were MLBP's attorney, I'd love to have UD's rep on the stand and ask that if you didn't feel as though you needed the MLBP licensing, why did you willingly pay for it from 1989 to 2009, and then prepare a presentation/application to have the licensing renewed for 2010?[/quote:393p96t1]


All he has to say is, "We hadn't explored the option to go unlicensed."[/quote:393p96t1]

They could also point out that they don't use any logos or team names on the cards themselves, which they would like to. They used to pay for that privilege and would happily continue paying, but MLB won't let them. So now they aren't allowed to put logos or team names in their card design, only on the photo itself.

My question is why wasn't Donruss able to pull this off in 2008? They didn't use logos or team names on their cards, and in the pictures they went as far as airbrushing the logos so they were slightly different from the trademarked logo. What happened? I mean, if UD can pull this off it seems like Donruss would have succeeded in their previous efforts to do the same thing.

 

[pigskincardboard]

[quote="doniceage":38v0na1l]Here what Ud replied to via in response to MLB allwegations:

Upper Deck makes it's case and provides their legal reasonings for producing baseball trading cards that use, what was thought to be, exclusive licensed logos and trademarks.

The attached document addresses these issues and more.

A. MLBP Has Not Shown That It Will Suffer Irreparable Harm
B. MLBP Is Not Likely to Succeed on the Merits Of Its Trademark Claims
1. MLBP Has Not Shown Consumer Confusion Is Likely
2. Upper Deck Cannot Compete In The Market For Baseball Cards Unless It Can Produce Cards that Contain Action Photographs of Baseball Players in Their Uniforms
3. Upper Deck’s Use of MLBP’s Marks Is Nominative Fair Use
4. MLBP Has Not Shown That Dilution Is Likely
C. MLBP Will Not Succeed On The Merits of Its Breach of Contract Claim
1. The License’s Language Prohibiting Non–Trademark Use Of The MLBP’s Marks After Expiration Of The License Is Unenforceable

Hope that helps as that is cold hard facts. Of course if their rebuttal (claims) hold up in court that is another matter.

Don

I expect them to hold up.

With all due respect Chris - are you a lawyer?

No, I am not. But I have read many opinions and talked to many people.


It's just an opinion, take it for what you will.

I know I see an Upper Deck Banner which means, regardless of your intent/character/best-human-being-ever qualities, I am not listening to a word that you say.

And that's fine, you are welcome to do that.

I personally don't give a damn what you think about anything.[/quote:38v0na1l]

Well aren't you a doll.

I think this is much more about the abstract idea of ethics rather than my opinion.

 

[cgilmo]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

 

[muchuckwagon]

It is not like UD is accused of murdering babies....they are in the middle of a legal dispute that 99.9% of world has no clue is ongoing.

Wow...just a little overboard. Every major company in America is part of some type of litigation. Having their ad displayed is not an ethical issue.

ethics?
You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.

 

[pigskincardboard]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

Monetary value is hardly the determining principle in the concept of ethics. I'm not even speculating on the financial or economic impact of any revenue stream on this website. If you want to go off on tangents, so be it.

Ethics translate, regardless of monetary donations, and the fact that you correlate amount of money to ethics is never a good sign, at least in principle.

 

[cgilmo]

ethics?


You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.



Don't pretend to know how the economics of this site work.

every "sponsor" we have could go away right now, and I wouldn't care at all.

The real sugar daddy to this site is ebay.

Monetary value is hardly the determining principle in the concept of ethics. I'm not even speculating on the financial or economic impact of any revenue stream on this website. If you want to go off on tangents, so be it.

Ethics translate, regardless of monetary donations, and the fact that you correlate amount of money to ethics is never a good sign, at least in principle.

get off your high horse

Most ethical debates come back to money, as it is inevitable that the motivation to be unethical will be tied back to it.

 

[pigskincardboard]

It is not like UD is accused of murdering babies....they are in the middle of a legal dispute that 99.9% of world has no clue is ongoing.

Wow...just a little overboard. Every major company in America is part of some type of litigation. Having their ad displayed is not an ethical issue.

ethics?
You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.

Simple Ethics lesson:

Offering an opinion, without at least moderate disclosure, on a company that's directly or indirectly tied to your business is ethically sketch.

I'm not saying anyone's committing injustice here and it amazes me how any variety of abstract thought is immediately turned to concrete. You can't poke holes in abstract ideas without using other abstract ideas, but through the magic of stupidity you can turn it into concrete and beat it with a hammer until it cracks.

 

[sportscardtheory]

It is not like UD is accused of murdering babies....they are in the middle of a legal dispute that 99.9% of world has no clue is ongoing.

Wow...just a little overboard. Every major company in America is part of some type of litigation. Having their ad displayed is not an ethical issue.

ethics?
You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.

Simple Ethics lesson:

Offering an opinion, without at least moderate disclosure, on a company that's directly or indirectly tied to your business is ethically sketch.

I'm not saying anyone's committing injustice here and it amazes me how any variety of abstract thought is immediately turned to concrete. You can't poke holes in abstract ideas without using other abstract ideas, but through the magic of stupidity you can turn it into concrete and beat it with a hammer until it cracks.

What does it even matter to you? Is he not allowed to state his opinions because UD pays for ad space here? He can say whatever he wants, it's his site. What he said doesn't change ANYTHING. It's merely his opinion on the matter.

 

[pigskincardboard]

It is not like UD is accused of murdering babies....they are in the middle of a legal dispute that 99.9% of world has no clue is ongoing.

Wow...just a little overboard. Every major company in America is part of some type of litigation. Having their ad displayed is not an ethical issue.

ethics?
You are questioning my ethics in accepting a paid ad? Look buddy, it's a small paid ad, that's it and thats all. They pay to have their logo there and may sites accept similar advertisements.

Simple Ethics lesson:

Offering an opinion, without at least moderate disclosure, on a company that's directly or indirectly tied to your business is ethically sketch.

I'm not saying anyone's committing injustice here and it amazes me how any variety of abstract thought is immediately turned to concrete. You can't poke holes in abstract ideas without using other abstract ideas, but through the magic of stupidity you can turn it into concrete and beat it with a hammer until it cracks.

What does it even matter to you? Is he not allowed to state his opinions because UD pays for ad space here? He can say whatever he wants, it's his site. What he said doesn't change ANYTHING. It's merely his opinion on the matter.

....CONCRETE!

 

[ballcardzdotcom]

I would just say if you're not happy with the site, or how it is being run, there are other boards. This is THE PREMIER trading card forum on the web. Well done, Chris.