If we really want to get our message out then a packed covered end (that's the lower part of the northern stand) where where we are all wearing a red football shirt not supplied by the club and doesn't have the club's shirt sponsor on it has the potential to send shock waves around the world .
Sorry, have to disagree.
Even if you had everyone wearing a non-official red shirt, all the media will see is Charlton fans wearing the team colours. In contrast (and I accept that this is highly unlikely with many actively considering a boycott), if the covered end was filled with black and white shirts, it is much more likely that the media will mention the fans wearing alternate colours to that of the home shirt.
Certainly, I hardly ever notice sponsors/or lack of, on shirts in a crowd.
How about, as mentioned before a home kit in red and white, mirroring the official home kit but without giving Any money over (good for lots of people), and an away kit in black and white which can be worn at home or away for those who have had enough of red and white.
How about, as mentioned before a home kit in red and white, mirroring the official home kit but without giving Any money over (good for lots of people), and an away kit in black and white which can be worn at home or away for those who have had enough of red and white.
I would probably stump up for both.
I said something similar early on. I like the home and away scenario. Will buy whatever is offered but this is my favourite
Thanks guys its all being taken on board. We will come up with one design initially, but if there is enough interest we will do a second one...ok? Progress is being made!!
just remember us fatties please. If you find a manufacturer happy to make one off's of a size then I'm happy to pay a bit extra. For fairness please also think of the vertically challenged among us ;-))
just remember us fatties please. If you find a manufacturer happy to make one off's of a size then I'm happy to pay a bit extra. For fairness please also think of the vertically challenged among us ;-))
No worries mate. I will open up a new thread when the time is right for sizes.
Whoever designs Nike kits sure know how to milk a design. England Holland using same design just different colours. Add USA, Brazil, Norway, Portugal, france to that as well, I'm sure there are others too.
I might be wrong but I think the badge is trade marked not copyrighted, which is a completely different thing. I believe that with a trade mark it comes down to whether the image is being used to try and fool people into believing there is an official link with the originating company. In which case there wouldn't be a problem using the sword on a shirt that has the card logo also as it is clear that we are not trying to pass it off as 'official merchandising'. Especially if the sales are not for profit. I don't work in this field so may be completely wrong. Hopefully we have some knowledge on here as we usually do and I trust CARD to check everything out before production. We don't want to give the club any excuse to legally fight the shirts.
I might be wrong but I think the badge is trade marked not copyrighted, which is a completely different thing. I believe that with a trade mark it comes down to whether the image is being used to try and fool people into believing there is an official link with the originating company. In which case there wouldn't be a problem using the sword on a shirt that has the card logo also as it is clear that we are not trying to pass it off as 'official merchandising'. Especially if the sales are not for profit. I don't work in this field so may be completely wrong. Hopefully we have some knowledge on here as we usually do and I trust CARD to check everything out before production. We don't want to give the club any excuse to legally fight the shirts.
I hope your right or can expect to loose a leg if Calamity finds out about my tattoo.
I might be wrong but I think the badge is trade marked not copyrighted, which is a completely different thing. I believe that with a trade mark it comes down to whether the image is being used to try and fool people into believing there is an official link with the originating company. In which case there wouldn't be a problem using the sword on a shirt that has the card logo also as it is clear that we are not trying to pass it off as 'official merchandising'. Especially if the sales are not for profit. I don't work in this field so may be completely wrong. Hopefully we have some knowledge on here as we usually do and I trust CARD to check everything out before production. We don't want to give the club any excuse to legally fight the shirts.
You can't use it if its a registered trademark or protected by copyright without the permission of the owner of the right.
Incidentally there was a big case called arsenal v reed about use of the arsenal marks as a "badge of allegiance". Basically, reed lost.
Best bet if in doubt is to make up something, or go without.
No intention of using the club logo for obvious reasons.
Yeah don't want any ammo for them! I'll be buying a shirt for the first time since my ex told me that the "db" on my Redbus shirt looked like a cock and balls
I might be wrong but I think the badge is trade marked not copyrighted, which is a completely different thing. I believe that with a trade mark it comes down to whether the image is being used to try and fool people into believing there is an official link with the originating company. In which case there wouldn't be a problem using the sword on a shirt that has the card logo also as it is clear that we are not trying to pass it off as 'official merchandising'. Especially if the sales are not for profit. I don't work in this field so may be completely wrong. Hopefully we have some knowledge on here as we usually do and I trust CARD to check everything out before production. We don't want to give the club any excuse to legally fight the shirts.
You can't use it if its a registered trademark or protected by copyright without the permission of the owner of the right.
Incidentally there was a big case called arsenal v reed about use of the arsenal marks as a "badge of allegiance". Basically, reed lost.
Best bet if in doubt is to make up something, or go without.
I bow down to your knowledge mate if you have first hand experience. I've been looking through a few legal websites because of this thread and I was interested in the Logo TM aspect and continuously found comments/advice like below which led me to believe what I previously posted (Yes I know a little knowledge is a dangerous thing).....
"Design registration protects logos in ways that trademarking the logo does not. For example, if someone is using your logo on their website for a non competing business, your design registration could put a stop to it, whereas your trademark registration could not. You may only stop others using your trademark if their use of it confuses your customers as to the source of your goods or services.
Also, if someone is using your logo in a comparative advertising campaign you would be able to object to their use of your registered design logo in their advertisement if you had a registered design whereas trademark law would be unlikely to help you to stop a comparative advertisement"
I read that as using part of the logo, different shirt design and manufacturer and adding individual aspects seems to me to not be a breach of TM. It also sounds like to start with it depends exactly what protection has been put on the logo and whether it covers individual aspects of it or the whole thing. I'm not a believer in using the whole badge anyway, I'm much more in favour of just the sword and hand but I feel that there is going to have to be some sort of clear nod to the badge otherwise the shirt is a bit pointless and may not be as well received.
^it's not just confusion, but also association. If someone saw our replica shirt they would see the logo and think "charlton" even if they didn't think it an official top. There is also things such as trade mark dilution to consider, and fair use.
If you had the mark "baboon" registered in respect of cars, and then someone used it for legal services, the risk of confusion/association would be far lower than if used for the same or similar goods/services. There would less likely be infringement.
In the current case though it's going to be very obvious which team we are association with, so any use of something resembling a registered mark will give them an open goal to take us down (though katrien "Simon church" meire would probably miss).
Comments
Even if you had everyone wearing a non-official red shirt, all the media will see is Charlton fans wearing the team colours. In contrast (and I accept that this is highly unlikely with many actively considering a boycott), if the covered end was filled with black and white shirts, it is much more likely that the media will mention the fans wearing alternate colours to that of the home shirt.
Certainly, I hardly ever notice sponsors/or lack of, on shirts in a crowd.
I would probably stump up for both.
I agree about not having Rolands face there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Charlton_Athletic.svg
I don't work in this field so may be completely wrong. Hopefully we have some knowledge on here as we usually do and I trust CARD to check everything out before production. We don't want to give the club any excuse to legally fight the shirts.
Incidentally there was a big case called arsenal v reed about use of the arsenal marks as a "badge of allegiance". Basically, reed lost.
Best bet if in doubt is to make up something, or go without.
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmownerid/search?domain=1&id=65174&app=1&name=Charlton+athletic&postcode=
azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/intellectual-property/2009/03/logo-protection-through-trademark-design-and-copyright/
"Design registration protects logos in ways that trademarking the logo does not. For example, if someone is using your logo on their website for a non competing business, your design registration could put a stop to it, whereas your trademark registration could not. You may only stop others using your trademark if their use of it confuses your customers as to the source of your goods or services.
Also, if someone is using your logo in a comparative advertising campaign you would be able to object to their use of your registered design logo in their advertisement if you had a registered design whereas trademark law would be unlikely to help you to stop a comparative advertisement"
I read that as using part of the logo, different shirt design and manufacturer and adding individual aspects seems to me to not be a breach of TM.
It also sounds like to start with it depends exactly what protection has been put on the logo and whether it covers individual aspects of it or the whole thing. I'm not a believer in using the whole badge anyway, I'm much more in favour of just the sword and hand but I feel that there is going to have to be some sort of clear nod to the badge otherwise the shirt is a bit pointless and may not be as well received.
If you had the mark "baboon" registered in respect of cars, and then someone used it for legal services, the risk of confusion/association would be far lower than if used for the same or similar goods/services. There would less likely be infringement.
In the current case though it's going to be very obvious which team we are association with, so any use of something resembling a registered mark will give them an open goal to take us down (though katrien "Simon church" meire would probably miss).
Just a thought