go on happy don't spoil the tradition, have an argument with him Tell him he's wrong.... Go on, do it You know you want to "Lambo your wrong....." Go on happy let it out, we all want you to
I haven't read the whole thread, but I'll just add this: I suggested this boycott purely to get the club to use our name in marketing again (hence "No name, no game"). Anyone who thinks this will get the Allams to pack up and leave on January 8th is delusional.
Now that SB has been forced out of the club, maybe a reprise of that chant: "When Allam goes, we're having a party. So bring your vodka and your charlie"
Out of curiosity, is trademark infringement a bit like libel/slander, where you can only be done for the amount that either you've gained from doing it or the other party has lost from you doing it? ie if I want to call Ehab a fraud committing cockwomble all he can get off me even if he wins is damages related to the scale of the detrimental effect on his reputation (in this case I'll accept a cheque for £3M for boosting his image by leaving off the rest of his flaws) Just thinking if it is then the Allams to take it to court would have to declare a value to the trademark, but they've already Ratner'd it in the media. Would they want to admit that Hull City is a valuable brand that needs protecting?
As well as Obi's strategy, perhaps a united front from several clubs is in order. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...otest-club-owners-blackburn-coventry-charlton Why are so many football fans protesting against club owners? Antagonism between supporters and club owners has become the new normal up and down the country – and there is no end in sight for many frustrated fans. Tony Mowbray’s resignation from Coventry City had been coming. Mowbray’s team were bottom of League One and a parting of the ways was inevitable after 10 league games without a win. However, struggles on the pitch and the loss of a manager are not the biggest concerns for supporters, who are enduring a long battle with the club’s owners. When the Coventry Telegraph launched a petition calling on current owners, Sisu, to sell the club last month, fans jumped to attention – 10,000 signed it within 24 hours – but there was also a weary, almost resigned acceptance that yet another group of fans had reached the end of their tether. It is not uncommon for supporters to have the odd spat with owners, but there is currently a rash of clubs whose followers are in open revolt against owners and there appears to be little chance of resolution for any of them. Angst and antagonism has almost become the new normal up and down the country and across the divisions. So, at a time when their advice and guidance is in most demand, it is bitterly ironic that Supporters Direct has reached a crossroads in its history. Established to help fans get a foothold in the running of their clubs via supporters’ trusts, Supporters Direct announced in mid-September that it is facing “ongoing uncertainty over its future funding and revenue sources.” While the top end of the game is awash with cash, this is not filtering down the pyramid and the cries for help are growing in number and in volume. Supporters Direct has achieved a great deal in helping fans express their views but many of those views are distinctly negative and show how much further there is to go before fans gain proper representation at clubs. As John Sillett, the man who led Coventry City to FA Cup glory in 1987, said of the club’s owners: “They are slowly poisoning us, so let’s bring the club back to the people.” Sadly, the tales of decline are not hard to find and they sound very similar. Blackpool have suffered more than most as Andy Higgins, a spokesperson for the Blackpool Supporters Trust, points out. The trust has been at odds with the Oyston family, who have been in charge of the club since the late 1980s when Owen Oyston snapped up the club for the princely sum of £1. The club reached the promised land of the Premier League under Ian Holloway in 2010 but the main beneficiaries of this season in the sun were the Oystons. Not only did a company owned by Owen Oyston receive a one-off payment of £11m, which was more than the manager and all his players combined, but also the Oyston group of companies allegedly bagged £24m in interest-free loans. All this largesse was displayed while the players were still awaiting their promised bonuses from a previous season with Charlie Adam having to resort to appealing to the Premier League for an unpaid bonus of £20,000, which he succeeded in doing in November 2010. Since reaching the Premier League, Blackpool’s decline has been alarmingly rapid. Just six years ago they were riding high in the top four of the Premier League after four matches, but their slide down the divisions was completed with relegation to League Two last season. Even though Owen Oyston’s reign was unpopular and ended in disgrace when he was jailed for the rape and indecent assault of a 16-year-old in 1996, his son Karl has plumbed new depths of unpopularity through a high-handedness that beggars belief. He infamously called one of the supporters “a massive ******” in a text message and was consequently and justifiably punished by the FA as a result, being banned from all football activities for six weeks and fined £40,000. Matters have been turning progressively sour as the relationship between fans and the club’s hierarchy has descended into name-calling and several spats have ended up in court. Unsurprisingly, attendances at Bloomfield Road have dropped alarmingly with only a few thousand hardy souls watching their struggles in the lowest division. Higgins insists that the Trust are continuing to work on bringing a change of ownership but admits that after such a long struggle that there is a certain weariness among the fans. “Apathy and protest-fatigue are understandably setting in for quite a few supporters as the Oystons show no sign of even entertaining the idea of going,” Higgins says. Charlton Athletic’s descent has not been quite as dramatic as that of Blackpool but their conflict with the club’s current owners has probably been the most vocal of all, with a variety of high-profile protests held over the last few years. The current impasse with Roland Duchatelet is all the more galling because not too long ago Charlton were seen as the epitome of a community-based club after their return to The Valley back in 1992. “Charlton Athletic have been relegated six times in my lifetime,” says Richard Wiseman, chairman of the Charlton Athletic Supporters Trust. “But no one took to the streets or threw beach balls on the pitch. Supporters weren’t happy but they saw it as part of the game – brought about by bad luck, shortage of money or a few bad decisions.” Wiseman says that the club’s decline during Roland Duchatelet’s ownership, which began in January 2014, “has provoked extraordinary levels of anger fuelled by the fact that this decline is the result of a toxic mixture of arrogance, incompetence and stubbornness.” The fans have mounted a sustained and at times highly imaginative campaign of protests, which they have funded to the tune of almost £30,000. They have carried out a mock funeral procession, delayed kick-offs by throwing objects on to the pitch, printed spoof match programmes and released a protest replica shirt. These tactics have generated plenty of publicity for their plight as well as generating a unity of spirit in defiance of the current regime. Duchatelet antagonised the fans from the start by undermining the manager at the time, the popular and reasonably successful Chris Powell, by wresting control of player recruitment from him and handing it to a small cohort of reviled and mysterious advisors who succeeded in bringing in inferior players. Powell paid the ultimate price when he was sacked. Duchatelet went on to appoint four coaches with little or no experience of English football, including one straight from the Belgian third tier. Not surprisingly, he was forced to sack them all. Meanwhile, dozens of underwhelming players arrived on generous contracts and failed to perform. The only person who may match Duchatelet for unpopularity among the fans is CEO Katrien Meire, whose expertise in European competition law is way above her experience in football or indeed in communicating with fans. She had never run a business before, never mind a football club but given Duchatelet’s absence – he hasn’t attended a game for two years – she is in charge. Her injudicious comments about how Charlton were going to develop stars and sell to Premier League clubs inflamed an already incensed group of supporters. The opposition to Duchatelet is only partially about what is happening on the pitch, says Wiseman: “It was noticeable that Charlton supporters at Oxford recently sang their plaintive ‘Please sell our club’ song most vigorously when the team were leading 1-0. This is a message that the protests are only partly about results. Many believe that it is more about the heart and soul of a club, which was once the national model for achievement and supporter inclusion.” Meire once claimed that “Roland doesn’t do failure” but the fans wish he would admit that his ownership has been a disaster and sell up. “There isn’t much optimism in London SE7 at the moment,” Wiseman concludes. There isn’t exactly a wave of optimism emanating out of BB2 either, as Blackburn Rovers’ plight has centred on a radical shift from the benign and generous patronage of Jack Walker, which delivered the Premier League title in 1995, to the distant and disdainful ownership of Venky’s since 2010. Blackburn have not fallen as far as Coventry or Charlton, but they languish towards the bottom of the Championship with falling attendances and there is considerable friction between the owners and the Rovers Trust, which was set up in 2012 with the aim of bringing the club into community ownership. The fans’ mood was hardly improved when former Burnley and Bolton manager, Owen Coyle, was appointed to take over at Ewood Park in June and a poor start to the season fuelled the negativity. The standoff at Blackburn has been going on for some time and, despite continuous requests over the last five years by the Rovers Trust to meet the owners, no such meeting has taken place. This lack of co-operation has forced the Trust to call for a change of ownership recently, a move that was backed by 97% of the Trust members who responded. Wayne Wild, chairman of the Rovers Trust, sums up the exasperation: “Blackburn Rovers has become a toxic brand for the Venky’s. The present situation is clearly not working.” Like at Charlton, the owners are rarely seen at Blackburn matches and have not been in attendance for a couple of years, which implies a lack of interest in football affairs. Blackburn, Charlton and Coventry have all lost money over the last few years, so one has to wonder what the motivation is for Venky’s, Duchatelet and Sisu. This conundrum only adds to the mounting frustration of the fans as they see their clubs stagnate and suffer.Blackpool are very much the exception, as they still managed to rack up a profit of £7.5m in the 2014-15 season, despite being relegated to League One, based mainly on the income from their Premier League parachute payments. Still, the vast majority of Blackpool fans would dearly exchange profit for progress. The Coventry situation had become even more fractious in recent weeks, as the owners banned the local paper, the Coventry Telegraph, from interviewing the manager or players because of the paper’s support of the petition urging Sisu to sell up. There is a glimmer of light for Coventry, who can take heart from the club who hosted their games for well over a year when they were forced into exile at the Sixfields Stadium because of a long-running dispute with the Ricoh Arena’s owners. Northampton Town fans succeeded in ousting their highly unpopular chairman, David Cardoza, towards the end of last year and almost immediately embarked on a club record of 31 unbeaten games, a run that started in December, securing the League Two title with ease and was only ended at Chesterfield on 17 September. Their renaissance gives some hope to fans of Coventry, Charlton, Blackburn and Blackpool that, however grim things may seem, there is always a chance that a much sought-after change of ownership can start to reverse years of decline.
10,000 signatures in 24 hours at Coventry. Wonder if we would get that in our rather more apathetic city? Interesting to see the local paper being banned for its support. Are you listening HDM?
It's similar and the damages awarded are normally very small, though there is the added cost of any remaining goods being seized and destroyed. These cases very rarely go to court, as the real cost is in the legal action itself and people normally hold their hands up as soon as they get the writ. In the case that Obi mentioned, the bloke ended up with about £300k in legal bills.
They can't stop us using the words Hull or City, they don't own them, if they did this board, the Council etc would be in trouble. Likewise, the World Wildlife fund would have something to say about them owning the word "Tigers".
Only because he lost. If he'd have won which looked possible at one point he'd have had his legal costs paid by the Arsenal. He lost because he used Arsenal FC and the badge, both trade marks, and 6 people thought they were buying official merchandise despite his stall having signs clearly saying the merchandise was unofficial. We would be using a badge and name that aren't covered by a trade mark. I haven't looked but I doubt whether the club sells anything with Hull City on it so no one would be confused it came from the club. Matthew Reed was found innocent of passing off at the original court hearing so its unlikely we could be done for that. The money for a potential defence is a different issue. First I want to be clear we can legally do it.
Despite not using the name on most things, they still make plenty of products that say Hull City on them, six of the twelve tee-shirts currently for sale say 'Hull City' on them. They will take action, the decision is not if you think it's legal or not, it's can you fight it when that action is taken.
Hull City is not a registered trademark. Hull City AFC is. Would the words "We are Hull City" infringe trademark or copyright? In my opinion and experience, no.
Only an idiot would produce something without first checking the legality of it first. Hull City is not a trade mark and therefore all they can claim is "passing off ". The Arsenal case said there was no passing off but a breach of trade mark. So on first glance we have the law on our side. How we would finance a court defence is another matter altogether.
It's barely known or mentioned nationally , that's what I thought the boycott was for , to get it more widespread and noticed and get some publicity , that's the only reason I keep questioning the match choice ..
Just make all the merchandise the london version of hull city. "Hal City" "Play up Hal" That can't be copyrighted.
https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...e-den-development-compulsory-purchase-renewal Millwall suffer bitter blow before verdict on The Den development plans • In-house council report recommends go-ahead for compulsory purchase order • Land may be sold to Renewal, which was set up by previous Lewisham mayor The saga of Millwall, the mayor and the mystery developer is about to reach a decisive point of crisis. A final decision on the compulsory purchase of Millwall’s land is due on Thursday night in the municipal splendour of Lewisham council’s civic suite. Already the club’s hopes have received a bitter blow with the publication of an in-house council report recommending the Labour cabinet forces though the order. The land would then be sold on to an offshore-registered company called Renewal, a move that could see Millwall FC threatened ultimately with a gentrification-led exit from their own backyard. Renewal’s ownership remains unknown, although in an arresting coincidence, company documents show it was originally set up by none other than the previous Labour mayor, Dave Sullivan. Sullivan is a former Lewisham council colleague of the current mayor Sir Steve Bullock and of the current chief executive Barry Quirk, best known locally for earning more pro-rata than the prime minister for working a three-day week with the council. Among those who might take the chance to speak at the hearing is Zampa Fish, a cod wholesaler whose business is now threatened with closure but which is, according to Millwall ’s supporters, still unlikely to be the fishiest thing in the room. It is a bewildering state of affairs generally, not just for football but also for anyone concerned by the opacity of local government. Already there are fears the compulsory purchase order may open the door to other football clubs being forced out of their homes by rising land prices and local authorities with an eye on the benefits of “regeneration”. At Millwall’s annual general meeting last Friday the owner, John Berylson, spoke of the black cloud over the club’s future. “Our landlord will be Renewal, an offshore company domiciled in tax havens with anonymous directors and no experience whatsoever, as it admits, of completing a scheme of his complexity,” he said. “I am sure that you will all appreciate just how serious this is and what a threat it represents to the future of the club.” The question of who owns the developer has been a point of speculation throughout. In an attempt to peel back the veil, the Millwall AMS supporters group has now engaged a forensic financial investigator to look into Renewal’s history and provenance. According to Millwall AMS’s Mickey Simpson, the investigator is a financial professional giving his expertise in this area for no fee in the interest of transparency. His findings, seen by the Guardian, demonstrate beyond any doubt the unbroken ownership link between the former mayor and the opaque British Virgin Islands company that owns half of Renewal. There is, by definition, no hard evidence here the former mayor or any of his associates have a current involvement with the developer, which has chosen corporate anonymity. But such is the historic connection that the head of Lewisham’s own scrutiny-committee, councillor Alan Hall, has already called on the council to formally deny Sullivan is involved in the scheme. To date Hall has received no response to his suggestion. Sullivan himself remains a fascinating minor player in the history of UK local politics. Often described as “colourful”, the former mayor was engaged in the outsourcing of local government services in the 1990s, and was so enamoured of New Labour’s prime minister he even gave his son the middle name “Blair”. For more than a decade Sullivan was also a director of Millwall, an arrangement that came out of the council’s sponsorship of the club. After leaving politics in 2002 he set up Renewal and began buying up plots of land in Bermondsey. The Millwall AMS investigation shows that in 2005 Renewal’s ultimate share ownership was split between Sullivan’s personal 24% and a company called Independent Advisors Incorporated, registered in the British Virgin Islands, which is still Renewal’s part-owner. A year later Sullivan was asked to leave the Millwall board when the extent of his property interests around The Den became clear. Three years later, the AMS investigation shows, Independent Advisors Limited became Renewal’s 100% owner as Sullivan transferred his shares behind a veil of offshore secrecy. When the Guardian asked Sullivan if he was still a part-owner of Renewal in September he said he was no longer involved. Asked if he had sold his shares, he said: “Yes, I must have sold them.” At the hearing on Thursday Lewisham intends to state that the identity of Renewal’s owners is irrelevant to the case. It is a startling position for a Labour council to back itself into. The mystery developer stands to benefit from public powers and public money, while evicting Lewisham council residents from their homes and undermining the area’s outstanding community asset of the past hundred years. The council also intends to address the sales brochure, revealed in the Guardian in September, that suggests Renewal’s Isle of Man-based owner has already been looking into selling its interest, throwing the council’s plans into turmoil. The pre-hearing report contains a bizarre attempt to dismiss the brochure, which was prepared by the estate agent Lambert Smith Hampton. The council accepts Renewal’s part-owner had engaged the estate agent, which then produced the sale document. Without the backing of evidence, the council then insists Renewal itself was “unaware” this had happened. As a member of the council’s own scrutiny committee, councillor John Paschoud, has already told the East London Lines website: “I find the explanations that nobody knew anything about it a little hard to swallow.” The report, which is already a source of embarrassment to some Labour backbenchers, also refuses to reveal the identity of the mystery developer because it fears it would “result in a breach of data-protection legislation”. Where to go from here? So far Lewisham council has framed this as a battle between two private profit-making interests, disregarding Millwall’s own historic role and indissoluble ties to its community. Nobody involved disputes the need to redevelop and build new homes, but there is plenty that stands to fall between the cracks. Millwall’s community trust currently occupies the land threatened with seizure. For the past 25 years it has worked with local people, mainly children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged, saving Lewisham council an estimated £7m a year in care and services. Those involved are already starting to feel the strain, just as local residents have suffered anxiety and health problems at the heavy-handed tactics of the developer, which have included erecting large signs urging them to sell. Should the council confirm its order, an appeal to the high court is likely. Transparent cooperation between club, council and developer would be a better outcome for all concerned. For now all parties will look to Thursday’s hearing and a land grab that will cast its own minor shadow over football league clubs everywhere.
Ruining Senior and Junior's hobbies/passtimes/family fun times is the way to go....eye for an eye and all that. Convoys of cars tooting their horns and playing loud music going past polo matches so it gets to the point where Junior isn't wanted by the other sloaney clique anymore, passive disruption of squash tournaments....
