#FleurtyGirl and others still face fight after Settlement reached in 'Who Dat' lawsuit

01-31-2012, 04:50 PM

Yep, I read it right. Who Dat Inc. is owned by a local New Orleans attorney. That's about right. Good old boy system still rearing its ugly head around here!

W. Kovacs · 01-31-2012, 05:24 PM

If I understand things correctly, this isn't so much a NOLA issue as much as it is a wider, US Copyright/Trademark Issue.

1) A Company or individual has claimed the rights to a phrase that should probably be public domain.
2) Another company who is adversely affected by this claim attempts to do something about it.
3) The company with more money eventually wins out, usually because they can just keep the case going for a longer period of time. Meanwhile, the smaller company runs out of cash and has to give up the fight.

All the while, the claim should never have been honored to begin with. It's actually a shame the NFL gave up, here. They had an opportunity to do the right thing for the smaller company instead of simply looking out for their own interest.

Beastmode · 01-31-2012, 06:08 PM

The fundamental concern for me is it was not a matter of importance until the Saints were a matter of importance over 25 years later. I'll never buy or wear anything with the phrase on it from here on out and I wish all Saints fans would scoff at the site of it. I have no problem honoring someone else's creation, but there is a limit that needs to be established on when you can stake a claim in that creation for profit. I don't know all the in's and out's of the case but the bottomline is it reeks of greed in it's purest form to the point that it's sickening.

tommy141 · 01-31-2012, 07:18 PM

I believe the registered agent is just the local attorney that you would serve papers to. The owners are probably the folks in San Antonio. I work for a national company and we have a registed agent in every state. So if you want to sue us in TN you need to send it to our registered agent in TN.

Pete · 01-31-2012, 07:45 PM

NFL settles legal dispute over Who Dat? chant | Home | The Advocate

AlaskaSaints · 01-31-2012, 08:04 PM

EFF EM.

And I don't own any "Who Dat" merchandise, so beyond that it's just free speech!

Alaska

SapperSaint · 01-31-2012, 09:26 PM

Dear Sal and Steve Monistere,

On behalf of the SaintNation/BlackandGold Nation/WhoDat Nation. I would like to inform you money grubbing, cheapa$$, TOOLS; that you are no longer members of our Nation. Saints fans do not put themselves above the team. True fans don't proclaim themselves "Founding Members". So if you want to continue this B.S. lawsuit.... go ahead. It won't stop the fans from saying the words.. WHO DAT!

So, to end this; I leave you with this.....

HouYat · 01-31-2012, 10:49 PM

These leeches didn't come up with the name & didn't invent squat! They just decided to play attorney and rush to trademark as much as they could as "their own". Makes me sick.

HouYat · 01-31-2012, 10:51 PM

And I almost forgot......take Dis (you own Dat too?)

OldMaid · 01-31-2012, 11:12 PM

I do not like this .
Correct me if I am wrong, but the NFL doesn't care about this anymore. Fine.
However , a N.O. atty trademarked it , jumped on it first and now is going atfer any other N.O. company to stop them?

01-31-2012, 04:50 PM	#11
Threaded by 73Saint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: NOLA Posts: 2,336 Rating: (0 votes - average) Yep, I read it right. Who Dat Inc. is owned by a local New Orleans attorney. That's about right. Good old boy system still rearing its ugly head around here! Halo likes this.
Views: 11003

01-31-2012, 05:24 PM	#12
W. Kovacs 500th Post Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Milwaukee, WI Posts: 514	If I understand things correctly, this isn't so much a NOLA issue as much as it is a wider, US Copyright/Trademark Issue. 1) A Company or individual has claimed the rights to a phrase that should probably be public domain. 2) Another company who is adversely affected by this claim attempts to do something about it. 3) The company with more money eventually wins out, usually because they can just keep the case going for a longer period of time. Meanwhile, the smaller company runs out of cash and has to give up the fight. All the while, the claim should never have been honored to begin with. It's actually a shame the NFL gave up, here. They had an opportunity to do the right thing for the smaller company instead of simply looking out for their own interest. Halo and Rueben Mayes like this.

01-31-2012, 06:08 PM	#13
Beastmode 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,126	The fundamental concern for me is it was not a matter of importance until the Saints were a matter of importance over 25 years later. I'll never buy or wear anything with the phrase on it from here on out and I wish all Saints fans would scoff at the site of it. I have no problem honoring someone else's creation, but there is a limit that needs to be established on when you can stake a claim in that creation for profit. I don't know all the in's and out's of the case but the bottomline is it reeks of greed in it's purest form to the point that it's sickening. Rueben Mayes likes this.
Beastmode 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 9,126

01-31-2012, 07:18 PM	#14
tommy141 Rookie Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 5	I believe the registered agent is just the local attorney that you would serve papers to. The owners are probably the folks in San Antonio. I work for a national company and we have a registed agent in every state. So if you want to sue us in TN you need to send it to our registered agent in TN.
tommy141 Rookie Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 5

01-31-2012, 07:45 PM	#15
Pete • Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Patterson, LA Posts: 1,753	On-Going BS concerning Our WHO-DAT chant! NFL settles legal dispute over Who Dat? chant \| Home \| The Advocate

Latest Blogs
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey

01-31-2012, 08:04 PM	#16
AlaskaSaints 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 2,484 Blog Entries: 2	EFF EM. And I don't own any "Who Dat" merchandise, so beyond that it's just free speech! Alaska SapperSaint likes this.

01-31-2012, 09:26 PM	#17
SapperSaint Pink Nightmare Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Mississippi Posts: 3,028 Blog Entries: 7	Dear Sal and Steve Monistere, On behalf of the SaintNation/BlackandGold Nation/WhoDat Nation. I would like to inform you money grubbing, cheapa$$, TOOLS; that you are no longer members of our Nation. Saints fans do not put themselves above the team. True fans don't proclaim themselves "Founding Members". So if you want to continue this B.S. lawsuit.... go ahead. It won't stop the fans from saying the words.. WHO DAT! So, to end this; I leave you with this.....

01-31-2012, 10:49 PM	#18
HouYat Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Humble, Texas Posts: 460	These leeches didn't come up with the name & didn't invent squat! They just decided to play attorney and rush to trademark as much as they could as "their own". Makes me sick.

01-31-2012, 10:51 PM	#19
HouYat Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Humble, Texas Posts: 460	And I almost forgot......take Dis (you own Dat too?)

01-31-2012, 11:12 PM	#20
OldMaid Site Donor 2014 Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 2,910 Blog Entries: 3	I do not like this . Correct me if I am wrong, but the NFL doesn't care about this anymore. Fine. However , a N.O. atty trademarked it , jumped on it first and now is going atfer any other N.O. company to stop them?

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/40859-fleurtygirl-others-still-face-fight-after-settlement-reached-who-dat-lawsuit.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
#FleurtyGirl and others still face fight after Settlement reached in 'Who Dat' lawsuit	This thread	Refback	01-31-2012 03:52 PM	2