I hope they have been approved by the club who I presume hold the license for the badge.

That's pretty good though

Looks like it's either lazer or water cut from a computer program

They won’t have permission and the badge is wrong anyway !!!

I’m not sure but as we are not a registered trademark they can use it. If you look on eBay you can get mugs with or have created with a Trinity logo and it’s not a club operation.

I’m not totally sure on this but I know registering a trademark is both difficult and expensive.

I suppose you could pursue the case in courts but pricy for little gain.

I think they will get away with it.

I think Super League own the rights actually.
It's why they stop people coming to the ground with big cameras unless you are registered. Image rights. I assume the logos are included.
Whether they would progress this issue is doubtful though.

Just looked on government website and Wakefield Trinity was registered as a trademark in July 2018 so the Club must have finally got sick of all and sundry making money out of its intellectual property

Wakefield Trinity might only be a small club but using logos for profit will get them in big trouble, we bought our house we live in now from someone who sold phone covers in markets one used to be over in Hull, we ended up with legal letters coming to our home wanting to know his where abouts and had bailiff call, turned out he had Manchester United and Guinness taking him to court and was later heavily fined think it was around £20k

Well that's pretty definitive.

Wow. I'm kinda on United side for that. Its stealing really, even if its only a logo, if it isn't yours to sell you shouldn't do it.

That’s fair enough, wonder why they don’t use the TM or R sign, always think that adds a bit of glamour.

Maybe to do with the “classes” that Wakefield are coved by? Class 25 just seems to cover replica kit.

The list is no where near as comprehensive as the classes covered by a major football team and items for which they are covered.

Is it just the badge that is registered or the actual name of the Club: "Wakefield Trinity"? Surely it wouldn't be the latter otherwise there would be a royalty to pay every time it appears in the media.

The media aren't making money out of selling it.
Like when they report on Microsoft or Google.

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcas ... 0003323305 Seems to be some misunderstanding of what trademark protection does. We are currently protected from anyone else trading under the name of wakefield Trinity in 3 classes. 25, 41 &43. It seems that the words rather than the logo are protected. Would these signs be covered by class 25? I guess we'd have to test it in court. Class 25 Clothing, footwear and headgear; replica sporting kit and sports clothing.

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmcas ... 0003323305 Seems to be some misunderstanding of what trademark protection does. We are currently protected from anyone else trading under the name of wakefield Trinity in 3 classes. 25, 41 &43. It seems that the words rather than the logo are protected. Would these signs be covered by class 25? I guess we'd have to test it in court. Class 25 Clothing, footwear and headgear; replica sporting kit and sports clothing.

talking about branding when are getting rid of the wildcat name top right of the page Pop tart

The BBC weren't making money out of The Kinks mentioning Coca-Cola (TM) in the song Lola but they changed it to cherry -cola so it could be aired on radio.

Was this about trade marks or the BBC not using trade names. e.g. sticky-backed plastic on blue peter.

Perhaps it was part of the BBC charter that decreed it wasn't allowed to advertise, then, rather than fearing breach of trademark usage, Coco. Hence "sticky back plastic" rather than Sellotape.

The club would have a very strong case against products outside sportswear using the name via 'passing off' rules if they could show that people assumed the products were from the club.
This doesn't always work though. I remember Asda being allowed to sell puffin chocolate bars which were very similar to penguins but no-one was confused or thought they were penguins.

I don't see that on the mobile site but I'll check it out.

its in teams on the right hand side

Quote ="snowie"its in teams on the right hand side'" https://www.rlfans.com/indexprefs.php

Quote ="snowie"its in teams on the right hand side'" https://www.rlfans.com/indexprefs.php

I represented someone 24 years ago, when I still worked in the defence, for selling framed team photographs of Manchester United on market stalls (they were producing them), and the problem was the use of the logo, not the name. I expect teams like United are even hotter at now, with all image rights, but this wasn't a civil case but a trading standards prosecution.

From memory, it was because by including the logo they gave the buyer the impression they were buying official merchandise, so misleading the buyers. I remember they got really whacked when they were fined.

Indeed, this is clear 'passing off' and is a quite powerful legal tool, but you need money and time to really assert your brand.
It's whether you can get people to agree that a reasonable person would assume the product is made or sanctioned by the club.
From the government site, it appears that the logo itself is not protected, but the words 'Wakefield Trinity' are listed, which I guess is slightly stronger in that no sportswear can be made without the club's permission with the words on it.

Even patents are worthless until they've been tested in a hearing.