UFC Sues and Wins Against WFC

[cottonzway]

http://www.ufc.tv/index.cfm?fa=news.detail&gid=2145

[Vanilla Gorilla]

You'd think that since Dana is taking all the credit on getting MMA to go mainstream in North America that he'd be supportive of all the smaller MMA org's that are starting up.But of course not,he's power hungry and is going to sue someone over two words that he used first.....oh wait no he didn't,UFC was called UFC before he even started there.Thats unbelievable.I'm not impressed at all.I would have loved to have seen how much business Worldwide fighting championship stole from the fucking UFC for using those words.My guess is none.People pay to see the fighters in an org,not to attend cause they have cool names.

[cottonzway]

I guess they are proud of themselves as well. What an arrogant buch of jerks.

[Vanilla Gorilla]

See as sad as it is that Im saying this,Dana White is becomming the Vince McMahon of american MMA.I just hope he realizes that the sport needs smaller venues to promote new fighters.I just hope hes not going on a rampage and is goign to start sueing every tom dick and jerry with Ultimate or fighting in their org's names.

[dy-no-mite3000]

You'd think that since Dana is taking all the credit on getting MMA to go mainstream in North America that he'd be supportive of all the smaller MMA org's that are starting up.But of course not,he's power hungry and is going to sue someone over two words that he used first.....oh wait no he didn't,UFC was called UFC before he even started there.Thats unbelievable.I'm not impressed at all.I would have loved to have seen how much business Worldwide fighting championship stole from the fucking UFC for using those words.My guess is none.People pay to see the fighters in an org,not to attend cause they have cool names.
Trademark infringement is a serious legal issue in america.
You HAVE to look at it from a business standpoint.

Look at it this way.

Say you VG are the owner of Microsoft.
Your company makes computer software.

I open up a small new company.
Name it Micronsoft.
WE make computer software too.

My logo looks VERY similar to yours too.

When our perspective customers/clients see our names, the way the law sees it, people may infact be mislead and believe my company is affiliated with yours.

Now say I fuck over a client. Now they will think both companies are cronies... You had NOTHING to do with my company except a similarity in names and business products.

This is why major and small companies are very protective of tradmark and copyrights.

Hell even I am bro. Every photograph I ever take has to have arelease letter for someone to use them.

I had to threaten legal action against a adult website from hosting a SINGLE image of mine in which I was not paid for.


Look at APPLE computers, theya re possibly next to microsoft the MOST protective company when it comes to trademarks and copyrights.

What the UFC did was to protect their best interests and their legal rights within the confinds of the US laws.

FUCK!!! How could I forget wanna see the most assnine type of copyright bullying. When do you see the SUPERBOWL in advertisements refered to as THE SUPERBOWL???? NEVER!

The NFL has the words and likeness copyrighted for the word THE SUPERBOWL, so all ads leading upto the superbowl are refered to as "THE BIG GAME" since the NFL a few years ago started threatening legal action against companies using the SUPERBOWL to sell their product in advertisements.

[dy-no-mite3000]

btw this isn't Dana going after the WFC, this is the lawyers and owners(which Dana does have a part in, but a minority part) doing what businesses do.

[cottonzway]

I agree with a lot of what you said Dyno. It isn't even that I totally disagee with them doing this in principal. The issue is the UFC has a serious public relations nightmare going on right now IMO. They have pissed off a lot of people with their new found success. From the media ban, to higher costs for live shows and PPVs, to lack luster shows, to awful "big" announcements that pretty much insult every core fan, ect.

When a company has a PR issue, and I feel they have a bad one, it is better to not do things that make them appear like they are attacking the people who are already upset. Sometimes it doesn't matter if "you're right" but it's in the best interest of your business to let it go because you are already in a position where you need to get back your true core fans. People don't side with a company that has upset them regardless if they are right. That is business 101. I just think it is a bad move for them to rock the boat at all right now.

[TILSON]

I can't believe everybody is against the UFC here. Someone was ripping them off and now they are not. End of story.

[Whining Pussy]

WHAT??!?!?! how the hell can they have exclusive rights to being a "fighting championship". That's some kinda Vegas casino-owner legislation. Almost as BS as their design of NSAC MMA rule sanctioning. UFC are highly unlikable.

[TILSON]

WHAT??!?!?! how the hell can they have exclusive rights to being a "fighting championship". That's some kinda Vegas casino-owner legislation. Almost as BS as their design of NSAC MMA rule sanctioning. UFC are highly unlikable.


CAN YOU EVEN READ?!?!?!?!


READ IT!!!!!

[dy-no-mite3000]

WHAT??!?!?! how the hell can they have exclusive rights to being a "fighting championship". That's some kinda Vegas casino-owner legislation. Almost as BS as their design of NSAC MMA rule sanctioning. UFC are highly unlikable.
a prime example of word or letter associtation which was held in England that had ramifications her ein the states was the WWF vs the WWE.

The WWE lost the legal battle and had to change their name to the WWE.

Also the NSAC changed a LOT of the UFC's rules.

shoes werent allowed anymore same with knees to the head.

Wasnt the UFC's idea to give me up but it was a trade off to get regulated/legalized.

[Whining Pussy]

If the NFL has "superbowl" so under wraps then how does the UFC constantly refer to themselves as the "superbowl" of mma.

[DCBooks]

I can't believe everybody is against the UFC here. Someone was ripping them off and now they are not. End of story.


Got to agree here. If Bocephus's Ultimate Fighting show sucks ass, and pisses off ticket holders so they don't buy UFC tickets then it hurts what Zuffa has been building.

MFC tried to push the Euphoria name and distance themselves from the FC usage last year, but that's what people were use to. I guess they'll have to try harder.

[DCBooks]

If the NFL has "superbowl" so under wraps then how does the UFC constantly refer to themselves as the "superbowl" of mma.

They don't print it on their tickets or posters.

[Whining Pussy]

Also the NSAC changed a LOT of the UFC's rules.

shoes werent allowed anymore same with knees to the head.

Wasnt the UFC's idea to give me up but it was a trade off to get regulated/legalized.

What was it that Ken Shamrock gave testimony for where he said Pride's rule structure was dangerous just prior to his accepting a fight in Pride? Was that when Pride was coming to Cali or when NSAC was deliberating over mma rule sanctioning?

[dy-no-mite3000]

If the NFL has "superbowl" so under wraps then how does the UFC constantly refer to themselves as the "superbowl" of mma.
trademark infringement, especially when you PRINT IT, when you use words in relation or associated with a product is where the grey area turns to illegal usage.

[cottonzway]

I can't believe everybody is against the UFC here. Someone was ripping them off and now they are not. End of story.

That is what I was saying. You are right that they are right. At least in part. The thing is this is how people will look at this because of their PR with their core fans. People NEVER take the side of someone who slighted them. So fans have a jaded opinion. Don't rock the boat if you've already tiped it over.

[DCBooks]

I see a lot of Hexagonal rings being sold this year.

[DeltaSigChi4]

While I agree with some of the opinions being stated here ...

NOTE: I haven't read the article ... am in the process of doing so ...

I must state that the WWF/WWE situation is very different. McMahon was sued because he got too out of control. He started taking control of all the WWF________ domains on the interwebs. IE. WWFdivas.com, WWFpayperviews.com, etc etc etc

That was the last straw for the World Wildlife Foundation. And I don't blame them one bit.

E

[Whining Pussy]

They don't print it on their tickets or posters.
So it's only in print? I don't see the difference in using it in a commercial(like dyno's example) or to market your mma promotion out of one of your announcer's mouths.

[dy-no-mite3000]

I see a lot of Hexagonal rings being sold this year.
http://highspots.com/product.asp?id=8117&category=180

get your own for 7500 usd
http://highspots.com/images/images_125/6-sidedring.jpg

[dy-no-mite3000]

So it's only in print? I don't see the difference in using it in a commercial(like dyno's example) or to market your mma promotion out of one of your announcer's mouths.
its tricky and advertising, and a whole lot of other bullsht.


ill see if i can find an abbreviated version on copyright infringement laws...

[cottonzway]

It's not evern fair to say that about the NFL. Everyone would take the side of the NFL. Because fans have a good relationship with them. The NFL offers a great product that you can see every one of your home teams on FREE TV and has very reasonable ticket prices. It costs the same to go to an NFL game as it does an NBA or NHL game and there are 60+ less games a year. A much, much beeter value. People would take the NFL's side on just about anything because they are happy fans. The UFC is FAR from that position right now. Apples and oranges.

[dy-no-mite3000]

Copyright infringement (also known as piracy) is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it. The slang term bootleg (derived from the use of the shank of a boot for the purposes of smuggling) is often used to describe illicitly copied material.

In many jurisdictions, such as the United States, copyright infringement is a strict liability tort or crime. This means that the plaintiff or prosecutor must only prove that the act of copying or actus reus was committed by the defendant, and need not prove mens rea. Good faith, standing alone, is no defense.

For electronic and audio-visual media, unauthorized reproduction and distribution is often referred to as piracy or theft (an early reference was made by Alfred Tennyson in the preface to his poem "The Lover's Tale" in 1879 where he mentions that sections of this work "have of late been mercilessly pirated".) The legal basis for this usage dates from the same era, and has been consistently applied until the present time.1 Critics of the use of "software piracy" to describe such practices contend that it unfairly compares a crime that makes no victim - except for those that would have profited from hypothetically lost sales - with the violent actions of organized thieves and murderers; it also confuses mere illegal copying of material with the intentional and malicious penetration of computer systems to which one does not legally have access. As a consequence, "software piracy" is a somewhat loaded term. "Theft" or "stealing" are considered even more inflammatory, as well as legally misleading.2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

[Whining Pussy]

its tricky and advertising, and a whole lot of other bullsht.


ill see if i can find an abbreviated version on copyright infringement laws...

na, you don't have to do all that. i see what's being said here. like i said tho, i don't recognize a very remarkable difference in using the word "superbowl" to market a product in a commercial or to use the word "superbowl" to market your mma promotion from one of your announcer's. In a commercial it is explicitly an advertisement, but the ufc's announcers are constantly promoting and advertising so it would seem plausible that their usage of the word could be interpretted as using the word "superbowl" in correlation with advertising their product. FC just seems like such a generic acronym. I'm assuming this is only applicable to persons or businesses using the FC acronym, meaning "fighting championship", in their product name, since fighting championships existed before UFC and continue to exist in and beyond mma.

[dy-no-mite3000]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement

A trademark (Commonwealth English: trade mark)[1] is a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by a business to uniquely identify itself and its products and services to consumers, and to distinguish the business and its products or services from those of other businesses. A trademark is a type of industrial property which is distinct from other forms of intellectual property.

Conventionally, a trademark comprises a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of two or more of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories.

Consumer protection and confusion

One of the public policy objectives given for trademark law is consumer protection, that is, to prevent the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. A trademark owner also uses trademark law to prevent unauthorised third party use of a mark which is identical to the owner’s mark, or which is so similar that use of the other party’s mark would result in a likelihood of confusion.

For example, a computer manufacturer other than Apple which makes products using the APPLE trademark, or a soft drink manufacturer which calls its product 'Popsi' (in imitation of the PEPSI trademark; although the similarity does not need to be this close) may amount to trademark infringement where the owner holds a trademark registration.

By identifying the source of goods or services, trademarks help consumers to identify their expected quality and assist in identifying goods and services that meet the individual consumer's expectations. Trademarks also fix responsibility. Without trademarks, a seller's mistakes or low quality products would be untraceable to their source. Therefore, trademarks provide an incentive to maintain a good reputation for a predictable quality of goods. For example, a consumer that purchases and likes Nabisco Premium saltines has a reasonable expectation that Nabisco Premium saltines found anywhere in the United States will be of uniform taste and quality. Failure to maintain consistent quality can lead to abandonment of a mark, when the law will no longer protect the trademark because it has ceased to function as an indicator of a particular product. Marks may also be abandoned by "naked licensing", which involves the owner granting rights to use the mark to another party without sufficiently controlling how or on what they use it. The mark is then released for general use. (see also below under Policing Trademarks)

Because the emphasis is on consumer protection, the user of a trademark does not "own" the mark in the same way that it may own a copyright. With some exceptions (see below under Dilution), the protection of a trademark is limited to certain markets, which can be defined by either the type of product or service (grouped according to the Nice Classification), or even a particular geographic area. For example, though "Lexis" and "Lexus" are confusingly similar marks, using the former for a news and information service and the latter for luxury cars means that the public is not likely to confuse one while looking for the other, and so neither can restrict the other's use. A trademark may also be limited geographically, if it can be determined that products or services do not compete because of the physical separation of their markets. Considering the national and even global nature of most manufacturers and distributors, the reach of print and broadcast advertising, and the disregard of the internet for geographic boundaries, this limitation is likely to be an issue in fewer and fewer cases. The market-specific limitation is not interpreted strictly. Instead, attention is given to how closely related markets are (such as pancake mix and pancake syrup), or how likely it is that the mark owner will "bridge the gap" and move into the other product or geographic market.
[edit]

Dilution

Main article: Trademark dilution

A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source. In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in the public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product (e.g., just the word Pepsi spoken, or on a billboard).

[dy-no-mite3000]

na, you don't have to do all that. i see what's being said here. like i said tho, i don't recognize a very remarkable difference in using the word "superbowl" to market a product in a commercial or to use the word "superbowl" to market your mma promotion from one of your announcer's. In a commercial it is explicitly an advertisement, but the ufc's announcers are constantly promoting and advertising so it would seem plausible that their usage of the word could be interpretted as using the word "superbowl" in correlation with advertising their product. FC just seems like such a generic acronym. I'm assuming this is only applicable to persons or businesses using the FC acronym, meaning "fighting championship", in their product name, since fighting championships existed before UFC and continue to exist in and beyond mma.
The UFC, owns trademark and copyrights to the "FC"in reguards to MMA, They ALSO own the rights to the term phrased "Fighting Championship" as a branding of their distinct product.

The law is as clear as day on this bad boy wether we agree with it from a personal standpoint or from a moral standpoint.

[Whining Pussy]

That is what I was saying. You are right that they are right. At least in part. The thing is this is how people will look at this because of their PR with their core fans. People NEVER take the side of someone who slighted them. So fans have a jaded opinion. Don't rock the boat if you've already tiped it over.
It's not just that i generally dislike the UFC. I watch most their stuff, i most not hate them that bad. as of now tho, i'm not impressed with their representation of mma and it's concerning to me that they seem to be trying to secure their monopoly as the premiere mma promotion of NA.

[dy-no-mite3000]

asserting themselves as the ONLY company to watch and with the money they have invested to get their product out there in the states is huge to their success and overall future here, to let other companies iggy back n leech off their R&D money is understanding.

It's the same principal as you JMJ.

Forgive me as i forgot th ename of your art group.

I start a group using the same initials as yours, AND use crayon textured large artworks, and go to the same galleries that ar einterested in your work to sell mine.

You spent time creating an original product and spent time and labour getting it known and out there, and here i come with little to no money invested and use your groundwork to profit from you rwork and time.

You dbe upset too

[DCBooks]

na, you don't have to do all that. i see what's being said here. like i said tho, i don't recognize a very remarkable difference in using the word "superbowl" to market a product in a commercial or to use the word "superbowl" to market your mma promotion from one of your announcer's. In a commercial it is explicitly an advertisement, but the ufc's announcers are constantly promoting and advertising so it would seem plausible that their usage of the word could be interpretted as using the word "superbowl" in correlation with advertising their product. FC just seems like such a generic acronym. I'm assuming this is only applicable to persons or businesses using the FC acronym, meaning "fighting championship", in their product name, since fighting championships existed before UFC and continue to exist in and beyond mma.

There's not a lot of difference, but if you're sitting at a promotion that obviously isn't the Superbowl, and they use the term in discussion it's not an advertisement. It's even grayer when you refer to "former" UFC HW champ Ricco or UFC veteran etc. Any promotion who uses Pride or UFC vets will advertise thier fighters past experiences, and can even use that on their promotions. Just not the name of their promotion.

I also suspect that Octagonal cages will be allowed, you just can't call it "the Octagon", as that is the UFC's stage.

[cottonzway]

The thing is these companies are providing fighters for the UFC. It's not like the UFC doesn't get something in terms of a financial profit out of it. If compaines locked down fighters that ONLY fight for them then that wouldn't be the case. Without KOTC there is no Diego Sanchez known (at least at the rate he is now) and a lessor winner of their reality show. The same can be said about many fighters they have fighting for them right now. They get money from these smaller shows in that way.

[Whining Pussy]

I wouldn't do all that.
well whatever, fuck FC then, it's a bad name anyway and probably the 2nd most self-deprecating thing they did other than air that groin slamming that Joe-Son endured.

[DCBooks]

The thing is these companies are providing fighters for the UFC. It's not like the UFC doesn't get something in terms of a financial profit out of it. If compaines locked down fighters that ONLY fight for them then that wouldn't be the case. Without KOTC there is no Diego Sanchez known (at least at the rate he is now) and a lessor winner of their reality show. The same can be said about many fighters they have fighting for them right now. They get money from these smaller shows in that way.
That's why they aren't trying to shut down the shows, just legally distiguish their "Major League" status away from the smaller show.

[dy-no-mite3000]

There's not a lot of difference, but if you're sitting at a promotion that obviously isn't the Superbowl, and they use the term in discussion it's not an advertisement. It's even grayer when you refer to "former" UFC HW champ Ricco or UFC veteran etc. Any promotion who uses Pride or UFC vets will advertise thier fighters past experiences, and can even use that on their promotions. Just not the name of their promotion.

I also suspect that Octagonal cages will be allowed, you just can't call it "the Octagon", as that is the UFC's stage.
Indeed.
although companies like the WEC use the Pentagon 5 sided cage.

To my knowledge the UFC owns the rights to "The Octogon" in terms of name, and layout which is a patent i believe so no one can build and hold pro fights in a cage that is the exact dimension as the ufc cage.

[DCBooks]

Indeed.
although companies like the WEC use the Pentagon 5 sided cage.

To my knowledge the UFC owns the rights to "The Octogon" in terms of name, and layout which is a patent i believe so no one can build and hold pro fights in a cage that is the exact dimension as the ufc cage.

RCF in Biloxi was bragging about thier new Octagonal cage when we were there, but it was way smaller that the UFC's Octagon.

[dy-no-mite3000]

Ultimate Fighting Championship?, Ultimate Fighting?, UFC?, The Ultimate Fighter?, Submission?, As Real As It Gets?, The Octagon? and the eight-sided competition mat and cage design are registered trademarks, trademarks, trade dress or service marks owned exclusively by Zuffa, LLC in the United States and other jurisdictions. All other marks referenced herein may be the property of Zuffa, LLC or other respective owners.

Zuffa Earns Victory in Trademark Infringement Lawsuit


UFC Camo T-Shirt

By Thomas Gerbasi

It was just another week in the life of the UFC, as sometimes the fights don?t just take place inside the Octagon, but outside of it as well. A case in point was Zuffa?s recent trademark infringement lawsuit against the Worldwide Fighting Championship and Gino Carlucci, which was filed in Phoenix on January 10th.

?It?s an unfortunate situation when we have to wake up every day, come into work and sue people because they?re using our brand names and copying the look of our product and logos,? said UFC President Dana White. ?It would be like me waking up and thinking ?you know what? McDonalds looks like they make a lot of money. I think I?m gonna open up my own McDonalds and use their golden arches.? You can?t do it. It should be common sense that you can?t use someone?s trademarks and all their intellectual property without their permission, but people try to get away with it and it?s unfortunate, because when they do, we inevitably have to go out and take care of it.?

The case centered on the Worldwide Fighting Championship?s usage of an Octagon in its events without a license from Zuffa, as well as using an Octagon design as part of its logo; using the term ?Ultimate Fighting? in advertisements; and using a ?WFC? logo that was confusingly similar to that of Zuffa?s UFC logo.

And contrary to what some press releases issued by the offending company would have you believe, the lawsuit had nothing to do with wiping out competing brands or the use of the phrase ?Fighting Championship?; it?s about protecting the UFC?s intellectual properties and keeping newer fans of the sport from being confused by misleading advertising.

?They?re using ?Ultimate Fighting?, and they?re using an Octagon with fencing over it,? said White. ?And whether people like it or not, Zuffa owns the trademark to the Octagon, Zuffa owns the trademark to ?Ultimate Fighting,? and if you illegally use any of them, Zuffa will sue you. End of story.?

As for other news outlets? erroneous reports on this matter, White pulled no punches.

?It's unbelievable to me that certain MMA websites who want to be taken seriously continue to deliver false news and rumors to fight fans on a regular basis,? he said. ?One site, which claims to be ?following this situation closely? is still reporting on this without having read the actual complaint ? which is a publicly available document. It?s sloppy reporting and it does a disservice to the hardcore fans that follow this sport.?

The case was resolved last week though, just before a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled for Wednesday, January 18th. The Federal District Court entered a Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction against the WFC and Gino Carlucci on January 25, 2006, in which the WFC defendants acknowledged the validity of Zuffa?s federal trademark rights, and were ordered to refrain from using the term ULTIMATE FIGHTING, to modify the WFC logo to remove the octagon component and to modify the font style and appearance of the ?WFC?. As part of the Judgment, WFC was ordered to obtain a license from Zuffa and pay license fees in connection with WFC's use of the Octagon fighting enclosure at its WFC mixed martial arts events.

Said White after these recent events, ?Zuffa spends a lot of time and money to create its intellectual property, and Zuffa is required by law to protect the rights it acquires. As a result, we will use all legal means necessary to prevent others from confusing fans into believing they are buying the UFC experience.?
...

[Alfuh]

Ultimate Fighting Championship®, Ultimate Fighting®, UFC®, The Ultimate Fighter®, Submission®, As Real As It Gets®, The Octagon™ and the eight-sided competition mat and cage design are registered trademarks, trademarks, trade dress or service marks owned exclusively by Zuffa, LLC in the United States and other jurisdictions. All other marks referenced herein may be the property of Zuffa, LLC or other respective owners.


W T F

[dy-no-mite3000]

heres a good one for you cool dave.

Did you know the "$" sign is a copyrighted trademark....

Do you know by who?

If I wanted to I could LEGALLY go and copyright the word/phrase FIGHTFORUM, thus making other sites I would sue have to change their stuff.

[dy-no-mite3000]

yanno TAPOUT the company owns the copyright to the word TAPOUT... right?

and KTFo owns KTFO....

[GNP]

Fighting Championship is lame anyway. They should start league call Tuff Guys Fighting.

[dy-no-mite3000]

Fighting Championship is lame anyway. They should start league call Tuff Guys Fighting.
"TUF" would be a registered trademark.. to similar. try again

[cottonzway]

?They?re using ?Ultimate Fighting?, and they?re using an Octagon with fencing over it,? said White. ?And whether people like it or not, Zuffa owns the trademark to the Octagon, Zuffa owns the trademark to ?Ultimate Fighting,? and if you illegally use any of them, Zuffa will sue you. End of story.?

He couldn't come off any more of a cocky prick if he tried. Anytime someone has to use a "Whether you like it or not..." in there is just screams cocky and arrogant. Now it doesn't means they are wrong, but will look wrong to many people because they have a piss poor relationship with their customers at this point. This just means they get no slack for putting on piss poor shows like UFC 55 ever again.

Also how do they "own" the term submission? I get the other ones because it has to do directly with their brand, but "submission" is about as general a term in MMA as it gets. That is just dumb.

[Alfuh]

heres a good one for you cool dave.

Did you know the "$" sign is a copyrighted trademark....

Do you know by who?

If I wanted to I could LEGALLY go and copyright the word/phrase FIGHTFORUM, thus making other sites I would sue have to change their stuff.

My identity has been revealed!

*puts mask back on*



*runs to register phrase Knock Out*

[dy-no-mite3000]

BTW

The "$" sign is OWNED LEGALLY BY GENE SIMMONS.

He registered it years ago after finding out no one owned the trademark to the design.

[DCBooks]

Also how do they "own" the term submission? I get the other ones because it has to do directly with their brand, but "submission" is about as general a term in MMA as it gets. That is just dumb.

That does seem to be quite a stretch. Banning the term submission from competitors advertising might be possible, but why bother?

As for Fighting Championship, no one wants to spend the $$$ to fight this one, but it really could be contested successfully. Fighting Championship has been used by Pride for almost 10 years. There are cases that when a copyright is not enforced it becomes invalid. A company can argue that after 9 years of building a name using FC, it would be unfair to make them change now when the UFC did not make it clear that the term would be contested. Of course this would require Money and Lawyers, and would DSE really care to follow through with a legal battle with Zuffa?

Now if Zuffa doesn't enforce the decision agaisnt Pride, the WFC or who ever could argue that the trademake is invalid as others use it as well.

This really comes down to who wants to drop the cash to use FC after it's been built up.

[DCBooks]

BTW

The "$" sign is OWNED LEGALLY BY GENE SIMMONS.

He registered it years ago after finding out no one owned the trademark to the design.


That is a good example of a registered trademark that would be hard to enforce.

[dy-no-mite3000]

That does seem to be quite a stretch. Banning the term submission from competitors advertising might be possible, but why bother?

As for Fighting Championship, no one wants to spend the $$$ to fight this one, but it really could be contested successfully. Fighting Championship has been used by Pride for almost 10 years. There are cases that when a copyright is not enforced it becomes invalid. A company can argue that after 9 years of building a name using FC, it would be unfair to make them change now when the UFC did not make it clear that the term would be contested. Of course this would require Money and Lawyers, and would DSE really care to follow through with a legal battle with Zuffa?

Now if Zuffa doesn't enforce the decision agaisnt Pride, the WFC or who ever could argue that the trademake is invalid as others use it as well.

This really comes down to who wants to drop the cash to use FC after it's been built up.
i think they did it, obviously 1. because their lawyers told em to do so, and 2. so NO ONE ELSE does it before them and fucks them over.

[Rauger]

You'd think that since Dana is taking all the credit on getting MMA to go mainstream in North America that he'd be supportive of all the smaller MMA org's that are starting up.But of course not,he's power hungry and is going to sue someone over two words that he used first.....oh wait no he didn't,UFC was called UFC before he even started there.Thats unbelievable.I'm not impressed at all.I would have loved to have seen how much business Worldwide fighting championship stole from the fucking UFC for using those words.My guess is none.People pay to see the fighters in an org,not to attend cause they have cool names.
not really, the WFC was a pathetic UFC rip off.

[Rauger]

BTW

The "$" sign is OWNED LEGALLY BY GENE SIMMONS.

He registered it years ago after finding out no one owned the trademark to the design.
that fkn jew would do something like that ...

[DCBooks]

KI$$

It's a natural.

[BigJ383]

You'd think that since Dana is taking all the credit on getting MMA to go mainstream in North America that he'd be supportive of all the smaller MMA org's that are starting up.But of course not,he's power hungry and is going to sue someone over two words that he used first.....oh wait no he didn't,UFC was called UFC before he even started there.Thats unbelievable.I'm not impressed at all.I would have loved to have seen how much business Worldwide fighting championship stole from the fucking UFC for using those words.My guess is none.People pay to see the fighters in an org,not to attend cause they have cool names.
Dana White isn't taking credit for MMA going mainstream he deserves the credit. The primary reason MMA is mainstream is because Dana and Zuffa. Why would he support the smaller shows. You think Starbucks supports smaller coffee houses or would allow a smaller coffee house to make money using there name.

Yes UFC was called UFC before Dana and Zuffa were there but they paid alot of money for that name. When they bought UFC they bought all the rights to the name and other trademarked terms used by the UFC. If they let anyone use why did they bother paying so much money for it.

[Bev]

I see a lot of Hexagonal rings being sold this year.

Actually, octagons are now required by the NSAC, and the new California MMA legislation also requires fights to be held in an octagon. The UFC won't be able to prevent/sue other fight orgs for using the octagon/cage anymore, as they are now required by law.

[dy-no-mite3000]

Actually, octagons are now required by the NSAC, and the new California MMA legislation also requires fights to be held in an octagon. The UFC won't be able to prevent/sue other fight orgs for using the octagon/cage anymore, as they are now required by law.
not true

there are rules in the Cali state AC to hold events in a 4 sided ring, the parameters are those of a standard boxing ring of 18 feet i believe.

Same for NSAC.

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Wow did I ever take too long getting back to this thread.

Dyno-good points in your original post after my last one.I didnt really look at it from a business standpoint.But still I think its a little unfair,but I guess thats life.

BigJ383-I agree Dana and co are the reason mma is mainstream now in North America.The point I was making was,if I was in Dana's position I would love to have smaller venues as a forming talent pool.Pick up whoever is doing best in their shows and promote them to UFC status,I guess they still kind of do that now,but still,the more smaller venues the better is how I would have seen it.

[my sex is artsy]

BigJ383-I agree Dana and co are the reason mma is mainstream now in North America.The point I was making was,if I was in Dana's position I would love to have smaller venues as a forming talent pool.Pick up whoever is doing best in their shows and promote them to UFC status,I guess they still kind of do that now,but still,the more smaller venues the better is how I would have seen it.

Actually, fewer small shows is much more effective. You instantly weed out thousands of useless fighters and filler matches. You consolidate all the B-show talent into a much more tangible core, and by having these guys in a more finite number of shows, you increase the chances of having them fight each other, so you more quickly establish who is UFC calibre and who is not. It is useless when you have a guy who you might think is talented, but he is fighting in Xtreme Kage Kombat in Iowa against fucking nobodies.