Copyright and Trade Mark law are there to protect brand owners from others from profiting from using another's intellectual property, we have no intention of profiting from it at all.
As you say, Newcastle and Blackpool (and Rangers) are currently offering alternative shirts, they are doing so as part of complete boycotts, with the intention of trying to remove the owners, this was not a route we wanted to go down. Instead, we decided that we would highlight the ridiculous non-use of the name, by simply giving people the opportunity to add the name to the things the club had removed it from. This is just the first step, other things will be announced in due course.
There never has been any issue with what the supporters wear, has there? Or the supporters calling the team or club Hull City AFC. There is nothing wrong with the shirt or its wording and for the life of me I cannot see why anyone could or would object.
You can order your Hull City A.F.C. shirt here... http://hullcitysupporterstrust.com/store/products/hcst-t-shirt-black-uk-3/ It's just the cost of the shirt, plus £3 for P&P (which also includes the embroidery cost).
Best be careful or the club will limit shirt sales to one per season ticket holder like the away tickets.
I can see what you're trying to do, I'm not sure the Allam's will care all that much. They'll still sell shirts, and I suspect the numbers taking this up will be limited and it's not overly visible. I mentioned in another thread, I know someone that covers the current club badge with the old one. I have no idea on the legality, but can't see a problem as I believe the club own both copyright's, I suggested before, it's a good opportunity it to market "unofficial Hull City" clothing. The 'irrelevant' tee shirts on Amber Nectar seemed well made and popular, and don't increase club sales. Any profits could be useful for the fighting fund.
You found the faith ? I see them as petty, vindictive, childish, twats. Nothing that gets one over on the "hooligan element" would surprise me. By the way, without derailing the thread too much, just got back from a holiday in Greece where replica shirts were on sale for 5 Euro.
There is no issue with a re-sale, it's called the first sale principle. I can give you an analogy. If you sell someone your vinyl copy of The Beatles 'Penny Lane', you are free to do so. If you record along with it adding another vocal and sell that version then you break the terms of the original sale. What has been proposed here doesn't break the terms of the original sale. The terms of the original sale in this case only apply to the trademarks and nothing else.
Disgusting. Encouraging grown men to wear replica shirts. The long established etiquette is they're only for children and plastics.
But you are taking the club shirt, changing it then selling it on, regardless wether you are making a profit or not you would need the club's permission to do so.
Not really, but we're helping to sell official club merchandise to people who wouldn't otherwise buy it, so I doubt they'll be arsed about it.
Joking aside, there's some truth in that, which is part of the argument for 'unofficial Hull City' items, as I suspect they'd be more acceptable to the image conscious. By preference, I rarely if ever wear a replica shirt, but do like some of the stuff with the club name on.
