Chelsea will "demand a financial settlement" from ManU that could "reach several million pounds to pass on the trademark" for José Mourinho, which the club has owned since '06, according to Hughes & Ziegler of the LONDON TIMES. Chelsea owns three separate Mourinho trademarks, which are due to expire between '23 and '25, and if retained would prevent ManU from attaching its new manager’s name "to a wide variety of merchandise, including teddy bears, aftershave, computer games and football boots." Until recently, Mourinho’s former employer also "owned the right to reproduce his signature, but that ten-year trademark expired earlier this year, shortly after he was sacked by Chelsea for the second time." Chelsea’s ownership of the Mourinho trademark "will not delay his appointment at Old Trafford," which is expected either Thursday or Friday after the Portuguese agreed to personal terms on a three-year contract worth £12M ($17.6M) a year during negotiations in London, but ManU "will seek to resolve the issue as soon as possible" as being denied the use of his name would "severely restrict" the club's ability to "exploit one of the most iconic figures in world sport" for its own commercial purposes. Intellectual property experts said that the Mourinho trademark is "now worth very little to Chelsea" -- there are only a handful of Mourinho items on sale at discounted prices in the Stamford Bridge megastore and as Chelsea no longer controls his image rights it cannot reproduce his photograph or voice -- but the club is "aware of its value" to ManU and believes it is "entitled to extract a premium" from its Premier League rival. Chelsea faced a similar issue when Mourinho joined Real Madrid in '10, when it is understood it "waived a potential fee and allowed the Spanish club to use his name." Carol Couse, of law firm Mills & Reeve, which has advised a number of ManU players on image rights, said that it was "highly unusual for a manger to have signed away his name as a trademark to a club." Couse: "What it means is that Manchester United would not be able to use his name on any product without obtaining a license from Chelsea. They could use his image for any sponsor’s product, but not his name. José Mourinho can still use his name himself, however -- it just prevents a third party other than Chelsea from doing so" (LONDON TIMES, 5/26).
QUITE 'CROSS': In Manchester, Samuel Luckhurst reported Mourinho was "not aware Chelsea had registered his name as a trademark." He was "angry to discover his appointment has been delayed by image rights, believing that his agent, Jorge Mendes, should have made them a part of his severance package when Chelsea dismissed him in December." Mourinho was described as "cross" over the delay but the negotiations were "never likely to scupper his move" to ManU and both parties have now negotiated the hold-up (MANCHESTER EVENING NEWS, 5/26). In London, Jack de Menezes wrote while both Inter Milan and Real Madrid had been "given the green light" to use Mourinho’s image when he joined them, ManU "will not be given the same grace," and to make matters more complicated ManU wants to hold the trademark outright themselves, "meaning that further negotiations are needed with Chelsea" (INDEPENDENT, 5/26). REUTERS' Neil Robinson reported the delay has "surprised sports rights experts." They have questioned "why Mourinho apparently signed over his own image rights, which are a huge driver of revenue." Pinsent Masons sports rights lawyer Julian Moore said, "It is pretty uncommon for a manager of his stature not to have full control over the rights to his name and image, and pretty rare for a club to retain rights independently of a manager" (REUTERS, 5/26).
'A LOT MORE COMPLICATED': ESPN FC's Gabriele Marcotti reported when Mourinho was coach of Chelsea “he signed a whole bunch of agreements relating to endorsements, licensing and use of trademarks," and ManU “needs to disentangle.” Marcotti said, “There is an official José Mourinho brand of Sambuca which gets advertised here in Italy. If Manchester United wanted to have a Manchester United branded Sambuca, will that affect them in the future? They need to go and they need to go sort all this stuff out. Apparently it's a lot more complicated than we thought it was” (“ESPN FC,” ESPNews, 5/25).
