Logo on kids football shirt

[ravenscroft2]

Probably one for Liz.

I hope this is a reasonable question.

I am manager of U12 Team and like the idea of the logo on the shirt.

The shirts are paid for by the team/parents anyway so no one is seeking any advantage, so could just go ahead?

We have a kit supplier who does logo's and we would just give him the design.

Is the 'TM' mark important as well?

As we play in tournaments/Leagues etc it would give good exposure to the foundation to it's target market!!

[RaTTuS]

it would be best to email liz directly

[lewmur]

ravenscroft2 said:


Probably one for Liz.

I hope this is a reasonable question.

I am manager of U12 Team and like the idea of the logo on the shirt.


Yes, it is a question for Liz.  But just as a general observation, it is difficult to give permission to use copyrighted logos because it brings up liability issues.  A kid gets hurt and the Foundation gets sued. 

[WorldOfPi]

Fortunately, as far as I know that's only really the case in the USA.

It's not quite that bad over here........yet.

[jamesh]

lewmur said:


ravenscroft2 said:


Probably one for Liz.

I hope this is a reasonable question.

I am manager of U12 Team and like the idea of the logo on the shirt.



Yes, it is a question for Liz.  But just as a general observation, it is difficult to give permission to use copyrighted logos because it brings up liability issues.  A kid gets hurt and the Foundation gets sued.



I'm bemused. How can having someone's logo on a shirt cause a child to get hurt with associated liability issues?

[grumpyoldgit]

[Phil Spiegel]

(U.S.of) America is a law unto itself - worldwide whatever local sovereignty may have been thought to apply.

[lewmur]

JamesH said:


lewmur said:


ravenscroft2 said:


Probably one for Liz.

I hope this is a reasonable question.

I am manager of U12 Team and like the idea of the logo on the shirt.



Yes, it is a question for Liz.  But just as a general observation, it is difficult to give permission to use copyrighted logos because it brings up liability issues.  A kid gets hurt and the Foundation gets sued.



I'm bemused. How can having someone's logo on a shirt cause a child to get hurt with associated liability issues?



Darned if I know.  But that has never stopped lawyers from going after the "deep pockets".  At one time I ran a quick printing business and I had to buy "product liability insurance" because someone might get a "paper cut" or drop a ream of paper on their foot.

[Gert van Loo]

Phil Spiegel said:


(U.S.of) America is a law unto itself - worldwide whatever local sovereignty may have been thought to apply.



Best examples of that USA lawsuits won that I heard of:

- Woman sues shop . She tripped over a child in the shop. (It was her own child).

- Man sues camper company. He set it to auto-cruise, then went to the back to make coffee.

- Man sues pharmaceutical company. His wife got pregnant despite him taking the pill.

[walney]

Man sues refrigerator manufacturer. Stands on open door to reach shelf. Door breaks. Man falls.

[walney]

...and who can forget the person who successfully sued MacDonalds because they got scalded when they spilt hot coffee on themselves.

[andyl]

ravenscroft2 said:


Probably one for Liz.

I hope this is a reasonable question.

I am manager of U12 Team and like the idea of the logo on the shirt.

The shirts are paid for by the team/parents anyway so no one is seeking any advantage, so could just go ahead?

We have a kit supplier who does logo's and we would just give him the design.

Is the 'TM' mark important as well?

As we play in tournaments/Leagues etc it would give good exposure to the foundation to it's target market!!


Trademarks work on particular classes.

The Raspberry Pi logo is trademarked for the following classes.

Class 09:  Computers;computer hardware and software and parts and accessories therefore in International Class 9

Class 16: Instructional and teaching material.

Class 25: Clothing.

Class 28: Games and playthings.

Class 41: Charitable services for the purposes of education and training.

Class 42: Design and development of computer hardware and software.

So you will definitely need to write to the Foundation for permission as you want to use it on clothing.

[lewmur]

walney said:


...and who can forget the person who successfully sued MacDonalds because they got scalded when they spilt hot coffee on themselves.



There are jurisdiction in the U.S. that are infamous for this kind of decision.  No matter how whacko the claim, the juries will ALWAYS favor the "poor little plaintiff" over the "big, bad, greedy company".  And the judges in those jurisdictions are just as bad or the cases would never have made before a jury.

I have three brother and a lot of nieces and nephews who are attorneys and I still believe in Shakespeare's admonition.  "First kill all the lawyers!!"

[abishur]

walney said:


...and who can forget the person who successfully sued MacDonalds because they got scalded when they spilt hot coffee on themselves.



Well... it certainly didn't help anything that the coffee was *way* beyond the temperature it was supposed to be at (we're talking slightly below boiling) but I do agree that it's still a frivolous and rather ridiculous case.

[grumpyoldgit]

The one that astonished me, and I think it came from the UK, was the burglar who vaulted over the garden gate to escape. The gate collapsed under his weight and he was injured. He successfully sued the owner for negligence as the gate was effectively faulty as it would not take his weight. The fact that he was injured during a crime was not considered relevant.

[Chris.Rowland]

Gert said:


Phil Spiegel said:


(U.S.of) America is a law unto itself - worldwide whatever local sovereignty may have been thought to apply.


Best examples of that USA lawsuits won that I heard of:

- Woman sues shop . She tripped over a child in the shop. (It was her own child).

- Man sues camper company. He set it to auto-cruise, then went to the back to make coffee.

- Man sues pharmaceutical company. His wife got pregnant despite him taking the pill.



I believe that at least some of these have been investigated and turned out to be urban myths.  The cruise control one in particular.

[lewmur]

Abishur said:


walney said:


...and who can forget the person who successfully sued MacDonalds because they got scalded when they spilt hot coffee on themselves.


Well... it certainly didn't help anything that the coffee was *way* beyond the temperature it was supposed to be at (we're talking slightly below boiling) but I do agree that it's still a frivolous and rather ridiculous case.



What temp should it have been?  Coffee is made by immersing the coffee grounds in boiling water.  If the coffee was "too hot", how is it that MacDonalds is still allowed to serve their coffee at that temp?  (180F) There was plenty of testimony given that proved it the coffee was served at lower temps, customers complained.  And, BTW, anything above about 130F is considered "scalding".   So even that would cause burns if you are stupid enough to put the cup between your legs.

[jamesh]

Chris Rowland said:


Gert said:


Phil Spiegel said:


(U.S.of) America is a law unto itself - worldwide whatever local sovereignty may have been thought to apply.


Best examples of that USA lawsuits won that I heard of:

- Woman sues shop . She tripped over a child in the shop. (It was her own child).

- Man sues camper company. He set it to auto-cruise, then went to the back to make coffee.

- Man sues pharmaceutical company. His wife got pregnant despite him taking the pill.


I believe that at least some of these have been investigated and turned out to be urban myths.  The cruise control one in particular.


In a thread such as this, please don't let the facts get in the way of a good old rant. That is certainly against the law in this jurisdiction, and you may encounter lawyers.

[Vindicator]

Grumpyoldgit said:


The one that astonished me, and I think it came from the UK, was the burglar who vaulted over the garden gate to escape. The gate collapsed under his weight and he was injured. He successfully sued the owner for negligence as the gate was effectively faulty as it would not take his weight. The fact that he was injured during a crime was not considered relevant.


In California if a person committing a crime on your property is injured your home owners insurance is held liable so the state and counties do not have to foot the bill.

And if you are pulled over for DUI and the officers request a blood test your health insurance is billed even if you are not guilty.

Most of the time if you fight these they drop them but they do happen all the time.

If you kill un-welcomed intruder in your home his family can sue you for wrongful death.

What do you call 1 million lawyers in the ocean — A good start.

Being a law abiding citizen does not pay.

[grumpyoldgit]

I always thought that in the US of A you could blast an intruder to infinity and the police would give you a pat on the back for being a good citizen. Or is the tabloid press lying to me?

[abishur]

Grumpyoldgit said:


I always thought that in the US of A you could blast an intruder to infinity and the police would give you a pat on the back for being a good citizen. Or is the tabloid press lying to me?



California is a little different from the rest of the states, and Texas is kinda at the other end of the spectrum (more in line with your tabloids on this one).  On the news a couple months back it featured this little old black lady who drove away a burglar with her magnum.  Would have actually hit the guy if she had been strong enough to hold that gigantic weapon properly!