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

01-31-2012, 01:01 PM

Even though the fight for Who Dat may appear to have ended for the NFL, local businesses are now left without the NFL to help defend against Who Dat Inc. for copyright infringement. Many fans have it wrong as the cheers ran across Facebook.

Late Monday afternoon, Who Dat?, Inc. announced it has reached a settlement with the NFL over use of the popular “Who Dat” phrase -- seemingly bringing an end to the dispute.

But Lauren Thom, who owns the Fleurty Girl apparel line, said her fight is far from over.

"I was really surprised that people were cheering and sharing the story through Facebook and being excited about it,” Thom said.“I don't think they know what it really means."

Thom and other local merchants were first ordered to stop selling “Who Dat” gear in 2010.

Thom said the NFL later vowed to side with her and take control of the dispute against Who Dat?, Inc., but she said, now, the situation has taken a turn.

"Instead of having the NFL with us to fight for the phrase, for it to be in the public domain, they're now out of it," Thom said. "I don't know what the terms were. It just kind of puts us in a position of scrambling because we still have to go to court in April and this really does change things. So, we're the ones that become the placeholder in the fight for the 'Who Dat' phrase in the public domain."

Who Dat?, Inc. said it reached an agreement with the NFL to voluntarily dismiss all claims against one another.

In a press release, the company wrote: “(The NFL / Saints and Who Dat?, Inc.) have also agreed to make available to fans, co-branded merchandise bearing the marks and logos of the New Orleans Saints and the phrase, WHO DAT.”

Thom doesn't know where that leaves her or anyone else wanting to use the phrase, but she plans to keep the fight going.

"We've been through so much with all this that I want to see it through for the people, for all of us. I don't care if I ever sell another t-shirt. At this point, it's like, it belongs to the fans. It was the fans before 1983 and it should be ours still," Thom said.

Thom said she plans to meet with her attorney to discuss how best to move forward, but as of now, she still expects to face Who Dat, Inc. in court.

Steve Monistere of Who Dat?, Inc. did not immediately respond to our request for comment on whether the company plans to continue with any legal action over the issue.

LINK

73Saint · 01-31-2012, 01:40 PM

Money grubbing bastards!!

Halo · 01-31-2012, 02:43 PM

Now they're going to pick on the little guy. It really stinks.
If you have Who Dat in your website name or you make a shirt with Who Dat on it, look out --- here comes Who Dat? Inc.

Euphoria · 01-31-2012, 02:58 PM

I think that was settled last year the phrase is ok to use by anyone but you can't use the Saints or NFL logos with the Phrase.
The ones still in trouble are the ones who used Saints logs with the phrase?

73Saint · 01-31-2012, 03:20 PM

Who Dat Inc.. The name in and of itself is ridiculous

AlaskaSaints · 01-31-2012, 03:29 PM

Somebody look up their business license in Louisiana and let's see some public information on the company.

I'd like to make sure they get as much publicity as they can stand.

Alaska

Halo · 01-31-2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

I think that was settled last year the phrase is ok to use by anyone but you can't use the Saints or NFL logos with the Phrase.
The ones still in trouble are the ones who used Saints logs with the phrase?

Naw, unfortunately there's a company named Who Dat? Inc. made up of the original guy who helped produce the original "Who Dat" song and he was somehow granted a trademark on the phrase "Why Dat" way back in the day.

He always let the Saints and fans use this without squatting on it... until the NFL decided it was going to try and own everything.

Who Dat, Inc. NOW also owns the phrases "Two Dat" and others. It's a real sucky, greedy situation... unfortunately. This all developed after the NFL tried to be greedy and take ownership of Who Dat during the Superbowl run. I also blame the NFL for starting all this BS.

Personally, I think he's exploiting a flaw in the legal system to try and get control of this and hope he loses his shirt and is granted nothing because he's GREE DEEE.

In the end, it's going to be the "little people" like Fleurty Girl etc. who will suffer from this. They'll try to force them to pay royalties on shirts already sold.

AlaskaSaints · 01-31-2012, 03:33 PM

History of Who Dat? | Who Dat Online

Nevermind. Here they are.

Feel free to say hello to them.

Alaska

Halo · 01-31-2012, 03:35 PM

Here ya go...

73Saint · 01-31-2012, 03:48 PM

So Ellis Pailet, the registered agent...Is this the "owner" of Who Dat Inc.? Am I understanding this correctly? If so, I googled the name and he's a NO attorney, which makes me even more angry!!

I hope Fleurty Girl and others like that company don't end up having to pay back royalties to some crooked attorney. I hope I am misunderstanding something here. Because, if so, that's one of the things about this City that pisses me off!! The beurocratic red tape that makes it SO HARD for small business in NOLA is ridiculous! And as much as I love this City, it's one of the things about it that I hate the most!!!

01-31-2012, 01:01 PM	#1
Threaded by Halo Site Donor MONTHLY Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 20,868 Blog Entries: 45 Rating: (0 votes - average) Even though the fight for Who Dat may appear to have ended for the NFL, local businesses are now left without the NFL to help defend against Who Dat Inc. for copyright infringement. Many fans have it wrong as the cheers ran across Facebook. Late Monday afternoon, Who Dat?, Inc. announced it has reached a settlement with the NFL over use of the popular “Who Dat” phrase -- seemingly bringing an end to the dispute. But Lauren Thom, who owns the Fleurty Girl apparel line, said her fight is far from over. "I was really surprised that people were cheering and sharing the story through Facebook and being excited about it,” Thom said.“I don't think they know what it really means." Thom and other local merchants were first ordered to stop selling “Who Dat” gear in 2010. Thom said the NFL later vowed to side with her and take control of the dispute against Who Dat?, Inc., but she said, now, the situation has taken a turn. "Instead of having the NFL with us to fight for the phrase, for it to be in the public domain, they're now out of it," Thom said. "I don't know what the terms were. It just kind of puts us in a position of scrambling because we still have to go to court in April and this really does change things. So, we're the ones that become the placeholder in the fight for the 'Who Dat' phrase in the public domain." Who Dat?, Inc. said it reached an agreement with the NFL to voluntarily dismiss all claims against one another. In a press release, the company wrote: “(The NFL / Saints and Who Dat?, Inc.) have also agreed to make available to fans, co-branded merchandise bearing the marks and logos of the New Orleans Saints and the phrase, WHO DAT.” Thom doesn't know where that leaves her or anyone else wanting to use the phrase, but she plans to keep the fight going. "We've been through so much with all this that I want to see it through for the people, for all of us. I don't care if I ever sell another t-shirt. At this point, it's like, it belongs to the fans. It was the fans before 1983 and it should be ours still," Thom said. Thom said she plans to meet with her attorney to discuss how best to move forward, but as of now, she still expects to face Who Dat, Inc. in court. Steve Monistere of Who Dat?, Inc. did not immediately respond to our request for comment on whether the company plans to continue with any legal action over the issue. LINK Last edited by Halo; 05-29-2012 at 11:55 AM..
Views: 11161

01-31-2012, 03:20 PM	#5
73Saint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: NOLA Posts: 2,336	Who Dat Inc.. The name in and of itself is ridiculous foreverfan likes this.

01-31-2012, 03:29 PM	#7
Halo Site Donor MONTHLY Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 20,868 Blog Entries: 45	Originally Posted by Euphoria I think that was settled last year the phrase is ok to use by anyone but you can't use the Saints or NFL logos with the Phrase. The ones still in trouble are the ones who used Saints logs with the phrase? Naw, unfortunately there's a company named Who Dat? Inc. made up of the original guy who helped produce the original "Who Dat" song and he was somehow granted a trademark on the phrase "Why Dat" way back in the day. He always let the Saints and fans use this without squatting on it... until the NFL decided it was going to try and own everything. Who Dat, Inc. NOW also owns the phrases "Two Dat" and others. It's a real sucky, greedy situation... unfortunately. This all developed after the NFL tried to be greedy and take ownership of Who Dat during the Superbowl run. I also blame the NFL for starting all this BS. Personally, I think he's exploiting a flaw in the legal system to try and get control of this and hope he loses his shirt and is granted nothing because he's GREE DEEE. In the end, it's going to be the "little people" like Fleurty Girl etc. who will suffer from this. They'll try to force them to pay royalties on shirts already sold.
	Like blackandgold.com on facebook follow us on Twitter

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 02:52 PM	2

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, 01:40 PM	#2
73Saint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: NOLA Posts: 2,336	Money grubbing bastards!!

01-31-2012, 02:43 PM	#3
Halo Site Donor MONTHLY Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 20,868 Blog Entries: 45	Now they're going to pick on the little guy. It really stinks. If you have Who Dat in your website name or you make a shirt with Who Dat on it, look out --- here comes Who Dat? Inc.

01-31-2012, 02:58 PM	#4
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	I think that was settled last year the phrase is ok to use by anyone but you can't use the Saints or NFL logos with the Phrase. The ones still in trouble are the ones who used Saints logs with the phrase?

01-31-2012, 03:29 PM	#6
AlaskaSaints 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 2,484 Blog Entries: 2	Somebody look up their business license in Louisiana and let's see some public information on the company. I'd like to make sure they get as much publicity as they can stand. Alaska

01-31-2012, 03:33 PM	#8
AlaskaSaints 1000 Posts + Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Anchorage, AK Posts: 2,484 Blog Entries: 2	History of Who Dat? \| Who Dat Online Nevermind. Here they are. Feel free to say hello to them. Alaska

01-31-2012, 03:35 PM	#9
Halo Site Donor MONTHLY Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 20,868 Blog Entries: 45	Here ya go...

01-31-2012, 03:48 PM	#10
73Saint 1000 Posts + Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: NOLA Posts: 2,336	So Ellis Pailet, the registered agent...Is this the "owner" of Who Dat Inc.? Am I understanding this correctly? If so, I googled the name and he's a NO attorney, which makes me even more angry!! I hope Fleurty Girl and others like that company don't end up having to pay back royalties to some crooked attorney. I hope I am misunderstanding something here. Because, if so, that's one of the things about this City that pisses me off!! The beurocratic red tape that makes it SO HARD for small business in NOLA is ridiculous! And as much as I love this City, it's one of the things about it that I hate the most!!!