General Wolves News

[darlowolf64]

Not really. It is actually inherent to prove (on the balance of probabilities) that either a) wolves did not have access to or awareness of the design when creating the logo, and b) that the logo was an idea created completely independently from the design from the plaintiff.

Some points

1. The design was entered into a competition run by Wolves Speedway, not Wolverhampton Wanderers. Part of the case seems to be that the Chairman of Wolverhampton Wanderers at the time had some connection with Wolves Speedway, and would therefore be aware of the competition entries. This is quite a leap, but the case is worthy of argument in court

2. The plaintiff has no copy of the original design. All he has are some preliminary sketches, which are, as far as can be discerned, undated. Showing a clear connection between the submitted design, the original sketches, and the final 1979 Wolves logo is going to be a challenging part of the case to argue.

3. Part of the case is that the submitted design was created by the plaintiff to demonstrate a mathematical theory (the name of which I cannot bloody remember). It is a geometric concept. It would be reasonably easy to argue that the geometric concept was very well known in design circles, and it wouldn't be a huge leap to imagine the designers independently using the same geometric theorem designing a Wolf Head logo and therefore came up with a very similar concept. That is what will damage the plaintiff's case.

4. The level of royalty he is asking for is (in my opinion) extremely excessive. Had he submitted the design directly to Wolves and it had been chosen, he would have received a designers fee rather than IP rights and royalty in perpetuity. Plus he would have been required to specifically sign over design rights when he was picked as part of the contract in that case. That should really be the limit of any recompense should he succeed

5. Is there a record of the Ts and Cs of the original Wolves speedway competition extant anywhere? It is COMPLETELY standard in such terms to express that all rights in submitted designs are signed over to the competition runner upon submission, because otherwise how could Wolves Speedway register the design right of any winning logo that they chose? If the Ts and Cs state this, then the case is dead in the water as Wolves Speedway could do anything they liked with the competition designs, including passing one over to Wolves if they thought it as more suitable for the football club.

He gets his four days in court. I would be extremely surprised if he was successful.

One other thing on his claim... The competition was in 1965? Wolves started using the Wolfs Head in 1979 so what happened between? Wolves chairman thought "I'll stick this in a draw till he forgets" ?
He hasn't got a winnable case imho

 

[Keef]

So if he wins,will we have to pay a lump sum,royalties and would we have to change our badge? I suppose it depends on the plaintiff

 

[Kenny]

Think he just wants paying for his design.

He will get £0 minus his legal fees.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

No way will we change the badge. Absolute non-starter. If that ended up being likely we would pay him to fuck off.

He is the geriatric equivalent of a cyber-squatter.

 

[Johnny75]

I would've thought as he's never registered the design he hasn't a legal leg to stand on. What I meant by architecture is that Wolves should be able to show their own design process and how it was independent.

I would also think the IP would've expired by now as it isn't like music and does expire if not registered.

 

[MobNet Wolf]

He’s claiming copyright infringement. You can’t register copyright, it vests in the author automatically.

 

[Boozad]

He’s claiming copyright infringement. You can’t register copyright, it vests in the author automatically.

But you do have to file an application for registration before you can sue someone.

 

[Tony Towner]

But you do have to file an application for registration before you can sue someone.

Assuming it is the same as my industry you can claim 'prior art' which wouldn't need to be design registered or copywrited, but you would need to prove firstly that it did exist and when it originated from and secondly that there's a compelling case that someone has taken your idea.

 

[Johnny75]

He’s claiming copyright infringement. You can’t register copyright, it vests in the author automatically.

Creating designs are not under the same rules as being a book author which in turn are different from song authorship IIRC. There are different time limits for each too.

IP is a minefield.

 

[Johnny75]

Assuming it is the same as my industry you can claim 'prior art' which wouldn't need to be design registered or copywrited, but you would need to prove firstly that it did exist and when it originated from and secondly that there's a compelling case that someone has taken your idea.

This is what I was trying to say earlier.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Surely it is a design right. Copyright is the written word more usually. For a start our logo is registered as a Trade Mark so that points to a different area of IP than copyright.

 

[MobNet Wolf]

A design right, like a trade mark is registered. The owner gets their monopoly right to use that design or mark based on its registration. Designs tend to be much more limited to physical shapes so I’d be surprised if they were relevant here.

As part of this action it’s likely the claimant is applying to have Wolves’ trade mark invalidated (ie. removed) based on, as has been stated here, their ‘prior art’ (although that’s a term used in patents and not quite correct in these circumstances).

But that invalidation application doesn’t give rise to any claim for damages. It merely removes the registration so the claimant is free to register their own mark.

So the operative claim here is still likely to be copyright infringement. Copyright attaches to far more than the written word and would absolutely attach to a proposed logo. It requires no registration and vests automatically in the author.

 

[MobNet Wolf]

IP is a minefield.

Tell me about it...! (I’m an intellectual property lawyer).

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Hmmm. Don’t remember it that way myself. But I only looked after IP as part of my role as in house so it wasn’t a complete specialism like with yourself so I bow to your greater expertise.

 

[Tredman]

Tell me about it...! (I’m an intellectual property lawyer).

I don't know whether to commiserate with you or get passively annoyed with you

 

[MobNet Wolf]

I wouldn’t describe myself as a total expert by any stretch. I primarily do commercial licensing of IP (ie. contracts), and tend to pass any claims over validity to my litigation colleagues.

What I’m not clear on for example is why the claim has not been time barred (ie. you need to bring the claim within six years of knowing you have one (even less in some circumstances)).

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I think he is trying to say he didn’t KNOW he had a claim until he found the sketches in his brothers attic and the clock should run from then.

I think that is dubious. He made the drawing so he would know he had a claim from the moment he saw the Wolves logo. The trip to the attic was the time he had something that he feels can PROOVE his claim. Not the same is it.

 

[Kenny]

I think he is trying to say he didn’t KNOW he had a claim until he found the sketches in his brothers attic and the clock should run from then.

.

Does he not ruin that by saying he pointed stuff out to the club in 1979?

 

[jdrodrigues]

A design right, like a trade mark is registered. The owner gets their monopoly right to use that design or mark based on its registration. Designs tend to be much more limited to physical shapes so I’d be surprised if they were relevant here.

As part of this action it’s likely the claimant is applying to have Wolves’ trade mark invalidated (ie. removed) based on, as has been stated here, their ‘prior art’ (although that’s a term used in patents and not quite correct in these circumstances).

But that invalidation application doesn’t give rise to any claim for damages. It merely removes the registration so the claimant is free to register their own mark.

So the operative claim here is still likely to be copyright infringement. Copyright attaches to far more than the written word and would absolutely attach to a proposed logo. It requires no registration and vests automatically in the author.

This. In Portugal, any industrial property right (trademarks, designs and patents) may be invalidated or opposed by a copyright. While uncommon, it happens.

However, from reading the information available, I do think the lad has no chance whatsoever. It requires a whole lot of proof all around, the burden of which resides on the plaintiff. From 65 to 79 to 2016.

To further diminish his case, he doesn't have the original drawing, the sketches are not dated, he can't prove whether the competition judges passed the drawing to the club, or that the club kept it for 14 years.

It's all bollocks, tbh

 

[The Bear]

Jimenez admits to being a plastic Scouser!

https://talksport.com/football/541272/raul-jimenez-liverpool-fan-man-city/amp/