Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, March 26, 2023

Red Sox drop trademark applications for ‘Boston’, blame MLB

The Red Sox no longer seek to trademark the word “Boston” for entertainment services, clothing and other purposes.

In a statement shared with The Boston Herald on Friday, Red Sox owner John Henry appeared to blame Major League Baseball for its role in two applications, filed on March 17 to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The applications are attributed to only one applicant—and it’s not MLB, commissioner Rob Manfred or anyone at the league.

The applicant is, “Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership New England Sports Ventures, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Limited Partnership Massachusetts Fenway Park 4 Jersey Street Boston Massachusetts 02215.”

The attorney of record is an intellectual property lawyer who practices at a law firm in New York City and who on the same day filed nearly identical trademark applications on behalf of the Seattle Mariners and Houston Astros for “Seattle” and “Houston,” respectively.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 26, 2023 at 05:33 PM | 19 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: copyright

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. A triple short of the cycle Posted: March 27, 2023 at 02:37 PM (#6121466)
In related news, the A's have filed a trademark application for "Las Vegas".
   2. Steve Parris, Je t'aime Posted: March 27, 2023 at 03:29 PM (#6121480)
What about the Angels?
   3. A triple short of the cycle Posted: March 27, 2023 at 04:24 PM (#6121491)
Can I trademark "woke"? I know there are some lawyers on this site! It would be cool if I get paid whenever someone says that. Let me know thanks.
   4. Itchy Row Posted: March 27, 2023 at 05:38 PM (#6121510)
The application says the Red Sox first used "Boston" "At least as early as 12/31/1953," which makes it sound like there are no records of it before then. There's probably some legal reason for that date. The Braves left whatever word they used for "Boston" before the 1953 season.
   5. Walt Davis Posted: March 27, 2023 at 07:31 PM (#6121522)
Can I trademark "Baaaahhhhhston?" Or is that the intellectual property of every movie ever set in Massachussetts?
   6. Walt Davis Posted: March 27, 2023 at 07:34 PM (#6121523)
Not that I hang out in sports souvenir shops but it does seem to me that neither the Bruins nor Celtics make much use of "Boston" and of course the Pats ignore it completely so it might not be as ludicrouse as it first sounds. I'm sure the marathon would be open to a name change. :-)

EDIT: Ludicrouse is the worst rapper name ever.
   7. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 27, 2023 at 07:39 PM (#6121525)
If you could trademark cities, it would have been done long ago. I’d be curious on what actually happened to allow such a boneheaded filing. The March 17 date suggests that alcohol may have played a role.
   8. . . . . . . Posted: March 27, 2023 at 08:20 PM (#6121528)
The March 17 date suggests that alcohol may have played a role.


There are many holidays that Maryann Licciardi at Cowan Leibowitz might celebrate with excess enthusiasm, but I am pretty sure St Patty's day is not one of them.
   9. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: March 27, 2023 at 09:38 PM (#6121540)
Reminiscent of the old Indiana Jones RPG wherein TSR tried to trademark the term Nazi™.
   10. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: March 27, 2023 at 09:44 PM (#6121542)
Not that I hang out in sports souvenir shops but it does seem to me that neither the Bruins nor Celtics make much use of "Boston"

That's strange, since the Celtics wore a "BOSTON" road jersey while winning their first 8 NBA titles, and have trotted it out periodically many times since then.
   11. Jay Seaver Posted: March 27, 2023 at 11:45 PM (#6121554)
I can almost see there being a case if the idea is to target the guys setting up shop outside Fenway on game days with crass t-shirts that don't have any actual Red Sox trademarks on them but don't exactly reflect the atmosphere they're trying to sell (he says, while wearing a hoodie that basically has the Citgo logo with "Fenway" instead of the oil company's name). I don't know that trademarking "Boston" would hit that many of those, though.

I'd be more likely to see it as targeting Boston Baseball, the pretty darn decent program you could buy for $2 outside the stadium on game day, but they seem to have folded sometime during the pandemic (although because "Boston Baseball" and even "Boston Baseball Magazine" or "Boston Baseball Program" are such generic terms and Google is so crap now, I can't find any indication that they officially called it quits on-line).
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: March 28, 2023 at 12:20 AM (#6121557)
I've got more than a feeling that Tom Scholz would object to this.
   13. The Gary DiSarcina Fan Club (JAHV) Posted: March 28, 2023 at 05:48 AM (#6121563)
I've got more than a feeling that Tom Scholz would object to this.


It's going to be long time before the Red Sox get that trademark, if Scholz has anything to say about it.
   14. villageidiom Posted: March 28, 2023 at 10:11 AM (#6121582)
I wonder if filing for a stupid trademark, then withdrawing it because it's stupid, establishes a precedent that would prevent others from applying for the same trademark. Like, if Sam Adams brewery decided as part of their Your Cousin From Boston campaign they should trademark "Boston", and USPTO receives the application, does the fact that the Red Sox (or MLB on their behalf) had previously submitted something then withdrew it because it was stupid give USPTO something they can cite as "see, it's already established this is stupid, please go away"? Or even "hey, in this withdrawn application it's noted that the Red Sox have been using this in marketing for 70 years, surely Barstool Boston Douchebros can't claim the trademark for 'Boston'"?
   15. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: March 28, 2023 at 01:56 PM (#6121606)
I'm gonna TM oxygen. Every time someone breathes, I get a penny.
   16. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 28, 2023 at 03:18 PM (#6121610)
I wonder if filing for a stupid trademark, then withdrawing it because it's stupid, establishes a precedent that would prevent others from applying for the same trademark. Like, if Sam Adams brewery decided as part of their Your Cousin From Boston campaign they should trademark "Boston", and USPTO receives the application, does the fact that the Red Sox (or MLB on their behalf) had previously submitted something then withdrew it because it was stupid give USPTO something they can cite as "see, it's already established this is stupid, please go away"? Or even "hey, in this withdrawn application it's noted that the Red Sox have been using this in marketing for 70 years, surely Barstool Boston Douchebros can't claim the trademark for 'Boston'"?
No. Withdrawn applications have no official impact at all.

I can almost see there being a case if the idea is to target the guys setting up shop outside Fenway on game days with crass t-shirts that don't have any actual Red Sox trademarks on them but don't exactly reflect the atmosphere they're trying to sell (he says, while wearing a hoodie that basically has the Citgo logo with "Fenway" instead of the oil company's name). I don't know that trademarking "Boston" would hit that many of those, though.
Just off the top of my head, the broader play here may be an attempt by MLB to extract revenue from now-unlicensed trading card companies that don't use the teams' names, logos or (pretty much) colors, but do identify players as playing for Boston, Seattle, etc.

A five-minute legal analysis:

Generic terms such as "table" or whatever are not registrable as trademarks at all, and must be disclaimed (i.e., the owner does not claim exclusive right) in any registered mark containing them.

Terms that are merely descriptive aren't registrable as trademarks ("trademark" is not a verb!) unless the applicant can show that they have used the descriptive term in commerce exclusively, and for a long enough time, that consumers have come to associate the term with the applicant as an "indicator of source" rather than just to describe the goods/services. A term like BOSTON would be considered primarily geographically descriptive, but that presumption could theoretically be overcome by such a showing.

The 1953 date on the Boston application is an attempt to claim that the Red Sox have "acquired distinctiveness" (term of art) in the term BOSTON by being the exclusive user of it for baseball games, etc. since the Braves left town. As I said, in theory this could work. I'm not aware of any cases (but I haven't looked) where a term has been found to be "geographically generic" instead of "primarily geographically descriptive." Even if BOSTON isn't found to be generic and thus completely unregistrable, the exclusive use requirement would seem to be a problem, as other teams have used BOSTON for baseball (just not at the MLB level), and certainly for whatever other goods/services they tried to apply for.
   17. Cooper Nielson Posted: March 28, 2023 at 10:30 PM (#6121661)
Can I trademark "woke"? I know there are some lawyers on this site! It would be cool if I get paid whenever someone says that. Let me know thanks.

I'm gonna TM oxygen. Every time someone breathes, I get a penny.

Um, that's not how trademarks work. Not even a little bit.

Both of those words have already been registered as trademarks many times, in many countries.
   18. Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Posted: March 29, 2023 at 07:36 AM (#6121674)
Um, that's not how trademarks work. Not even a little bit.


Surely you can't be serious.
   19. Zach Posted: March 29, 2023 at 06:05 PM (#6121721)
If you could trademark cities, it would have been done long ago.

I always assumed that was why Constantinople appears as Istanbul on maps -- they couldn't get the rights.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFormer Yankee Luis Severino agrees to 1-year, $13 million deal with Mets: reports
(6 - 3:14am, Nov 30)
Last: Starring Bradley Scotchman as RMc

NewsblogAndre Dawson Wants His Hall of Fame Cap Changed to the Cubs
(33 - 2:36am, Nov 30)
Last: Booey

NewsblogWho is on the 2024 Baseball Hall of Fame ballot and what’s the induction process?
(254 - 2:18am, Nov 30)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogReds add reliever Pagán on 2-year deal
(4 - 10:38pm, Nov 29)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - NBA Redux Thread for the End of 2023
(94 - 10:05pm, Nov 29)
Last: SteveF

NewsblogOT Soccer - World Cup Final/European Leagues Start
(283 - 8:16pm, Nov 29)
Last: Infinite Yost (Voxter)

NewsblogOakland-area fans start Ballers, an independent baseball team
(11 - 7:19pm, Nov 29)
Last: GregD

NewsblogUpdate on Yankees’ Juan Soto trade talks: Teams talking players, but not close on agreement
(18 - 6:47pm, Nov 29)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogThe future of live sports TV reaches a tipping point
(48 - 5:39pm, Nov 29)
Last: Darren

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2023 Results
(2 - 5:01pm, Nov 29)
Last: DL from MN

NewsblogLiam Hendriks, Cody Bellinger Comeback Players of the Year
(1 - 4:43pm, Nov 29)
Last: You can keep your massive haul

NewsblogOT - November* 2023 College Football thread
(163 - 3:37pm, Nov 29)
Last: Karl from NY

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(3017 - 3:21pm, Nov 29)
Last: a brief article regarding 57i66135

NewsblogSource: Cardinals adding Sonny Gray to revamped rotation
(30 - 3:11pm, Nov 29)
Last: Walt Davis

Hall of MeritMock Hall of Fame 2024 Contemporary Baseball Ballot - Managers, Executives and Umpires
(19 - 11:33am, Nov 29)
Last: dark

Page rendered in 0.3736 seconds
48 querie(s) executed