NFL Backs Off On Ownership Claim Of Popular "Who Dat" Phrase

NFL Claims "Who Dat" T-Shirts Cannot Be Advertised As Saints, League Paraphernalia

The NFL "appeared to back off Friday on its trademark ownership claims to the phrase 'Who Dat' and the fleur-de-lis logo, saying it is challenging the sale of items only 'when those products contained or are advertised using other trademarks or identifiers of the Saints,'" according to Jaquetta White of the New Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE. NFL VP/Communications Brian McCarthy: "'Who Dat' we do not claim to own by itself. It's when 'Who Dat' is used in conjunction with Saints marks that it's a problem." McCarthy said that T-shirts and items with "Who Dat" and a fleur-de-lis logo "unlike the one owned by the Saints are allowed as long as they are not advertised as being Saints or NFL paraphernalia." In a letter to U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the NFL "described the trademark tussle, which has enraged New Orleans Saints fans across the country since it erupted" last week, as a "significant misunderstanding." Vitter last month sent a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, stating he "was stunned to learn" that the league took the stance that it owns the exclusive trademark of the term and that the NFL "has even threatened legal action against some mom-and-pop merchants selling T-shirts using the term." Vitter wrote, "This letter will also serve as formal legal notice that I am having T-shirts printed that say 'Who Dat say we can't print Who Dat!' for widespread sale in commerce. Please either drop your present ridiculous position or sue me." White noted "other members of the Louisiana congressional delegation also demanded that the NFL cease its threats of legal action against merchants" (New Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE, 1/30). In Baton Rouge, Marsha Shuler reported the Louisiana Democratic Party Saturday "called on Gov. Bobby Jindal to authorize a state lawsuit against the NFL" over use of the phrase and logo. Jindal's office in a short statement said, "If litigation is necessary, so be it" (Baton Rouge ADVOCATE, 1/31).

DAT'S THE TICKET: A New Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE editorial stated the NFL's "aborted attempt to enforce a trademark over 'Who Dat' was absurd and a public relations blunder of Super Bowl proportions." The NFL "did itself a favor by publicly vowing to back down." NFL officials "need to recognize that Who Dat belongs to Saints fans -- and that the Saints and the NFL benefit immensely from that feeling." The editorial: "No one doubts the NFL's right to enforce trademarks over the team's distinctive items, such as the team logos. But the league should learn from this episode, and recognize it has no claim over Who Dat" (New Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE, 1/30). ESPN's Tony Kornheiser said, "I don’t know how, if you’re the NFL, you can claim that you can trademark this. This is a populist thing that grew up in the area of New Orleans and belongs to all those people” ("PTI," ESPN, 1/29). In Miami, Greg Cote wrote, "I think that cease-and-desist letter needs to go to the NFL for needlessly and rather callously alienating Saints fans the very week of their first Super Bowl appearance" (MIAMI HERALD, 1/31).

LEAGUE MIGHT HAVE A LEG TO STAND ON: Tulane Univ. Law School professor Glenn Lunney said that a trademark is "different from a copyright or patent and doesn't necessarily have to be original." He said that the NFL "would likely argue it has a valid trademark because 'Who Dat' is so strongly associated with the Saints" (Baton Rouge ADVOCATE, 1/30).