Talking Footy

TLPG wrote:

They're not lying. The Brisbane consortium is in big trouble if they proceed. The AFL trademarked the Bombers name in Australia considerably more recently than the formation of the Essendon FC. Heck they didn't even adopt the Bombers moniker until - heck when was it? I think it was the 1930's from memory but that's a guess. They're nickname before that (and this was embarassing I have to say) was the "Same Olds"! I'm serious!

Just admit that you don't know any more than the consortium, hmmm?

Then they're in big trouble
they have registered their name ... & it has been accepted
if there was th slightest hint it wasin breach of the law .. it would have been rejected don't you think

Lets see how this goes in court Raider. I'm confident the NRL and the consortium already struggling for finances will back down once they realise the legal ramifications and costs involved. They are stupid if they don't realise that.

Beaussie wrote:

Lets see how this goes in court Raider. I'm confident the NRL and the consortium already struggling for finances will back down once they realise the legal ramifications and costs involved. They are stupid if they don't realise that.

the new club will be owned by the thoroughbreds
a consortium of Brisbane Business men with plenty of the green stuff

they'll hold their own
& when they win & the loser has to pay costs
its the broke Essendon Football club
( announced a 1.6 Million dollar loss last year just yesterday ) that will be looking for a handout from their sugar daddy AFL

The AFL also has another law on their side....the Ways and Means Act. Be careful nrl as your going to not like what you see if you get in our way....

Grim Reaper wrote:

The AFL also has another law on their side....the Ways and Means Act. Be careful nrl as your going to not like what you see if you get in our way....

we've been in your way for 30 years
& you're no closer to getting past

best give up & head back across the murray
& stay there

You're really scared of the AFL aren't you, Raider?

TLPG wrote:

You're really scared of the AFL aren't you, Raider?

yeah petrified
too many more of those massive ratings for the swans & I won't know where to hide

:_<>

TLPG wrote:

Raiderdave wrote:

TLPG wrote:

They can't. I know my law. I've looked into copyright (which IP is a part of) for my own reasons. The consortium has some very dumb people on board.

you know squat
you've proved it numerous times in here

I've won a defamation action for the record. So I know my law.

so you know the copyright laws do you ?

this bloke .. an expert ... from Melbourne
says you don't
http://www.smh.com.au/AFL/AFL-news/bomb ... 1hez8.html


'But prominent Melbourne sports lawyer Paul Ehrlich rubbished suggestions Essendon would have a case to argue for infringement of trademark or intellectual property rights.

"You've got to show that somebody's been misled or deceived, that's the cause of action, that's the thing you're complaining about," Ehrlich told Melbourne's SEN radio'


who seriously would argue that people don't know the difference between the 2 sides
in 2 different codes
in 2 different cities , this is why the name has been approved

theres no deception ... it won't even go to court

& theres more bad news on the way
I hear on the grape vine.. that the name for 2 more of the new NRL sides

will be the
Perth Magpies
& ... Adelaide Demons :_<>

AFFP wrote:

If a trademark has been registered, I understand that it's locked off. Deception has nothing to do with it.

not according to the legal expert above

& the Brisbane Bombers lodged & had their name accepted under the same principle

another win to the NRL

AFFP wrote:

The "legal expert" has his thumb up his arse.

no that'd be the Essendon Football club & the AFL

outsmarted by our soon to be newest club
CARN the mighty Brisbane Bombers

they're my 2nd fav team already

There will be no Brisbane Bombers.

The AFL will win the case because they have the Bombers name trademarked and it can not be used within Australia in any other elite level sport.

Stop talking as though you understand it, Raider. You don't. I am as close to a lawyer as this board will get. If I get the time I will provide the full reason why the consortium will never get off the ground unless they drop the Bombers nickname for something else.

TLPG wrote:

There will be no Brisbane Bombers.

The AFL will win the case because they have the Bombers name trademarked and it can not be used within Australia in any other elite level sport.

Stop talking as though you understand it, Raider. You don't. I am as close to a lawyer as this board will get. If I get the time I will provide the full reason why the consortium will never get off the ground unless they drop the Bombers nickname for something else.

what .. you clean his toilet ?

you have zero knowledge , the names been approved
the AFL & Essendon have received their advice from their solicitors
( thats what we call them here ) not lawyers ...
& know they can do nothing ...

I have experience in the courts before judges - in the Magistrate's Court, County Court, Supreme Court, Federal Court and Federal Magistrate's Court. I also have experience in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Victorian Civil and Adminstrative Tribunal.

I also know copyright law, and trademarks. The consortium is in big trouble.

Edit - removed slanderous post by Raider. The majority were as the prosecution.

Magistrate's Court - defending a frivilous simple assault charge (the only defence) in Queensland
County Court - prosecuting a defamation action, and winning
Supreme Court - prosecuting another two defamation actions (both in progress)
Federal Court - prosecuting four discrimination cases at once in review from HREOC, with two being ruled out of time, the third being transferred to the FMC and the fourth (arising out of the Mag Court thing) being settled out of court
Federal Magistrate's Court - prosecuting the third discrimination matter mentioned above, and lost due to a technicality in the law which has to change (long story)
AAT - prosecuting a review of a rejected compensation claim, and lost (that was my first law effort and it was a long time ago)
VCAT - I've been through here too many times to go through them all, with a mixture of success and failure

All self represented and self researched with bits and pieces of advice here and there. The County Court one in particular was a major victory for me.

I have also researched the idea of trademarking and I am well aware of it's effects. Gold Coast had to use the Suns because the Sharks and the Dolphins have been trademarked. I'll follow that up if others try to press it so I can prove my point.

TLPG wrote:

Magistrate's Court - defending a frivilous simple assault charge (the only defence) in Queensland
County Court - prosecuting a defamation action, and winning
Supreme Court - prosecuting another two defamation actions (both in progress)
Federal Court - prosecuting four discrimination cases at once in review from HREOC, with two being ruled out of time, the third being transferred to the FMC and the fourth (arising out of the Mag Court thing) being settled out of court
Federal Magistrate's Court - prosecuting the third discrimination matter mentioned above, and lost due to a technicality in the law which has to change (long story)
AAT - prosecuting a review of a rejected compensation claim, and lost (that was my first law effort and it was a long time ago)
VCAT - I've been through here too many times to go through them all, with a mixture of success and failure

All self represented and self researched with bits and pieces of advice here and there. The County Court one in particular was a major victory for me.

I have also researched the idea of trademarking and I am well aware of it's effects. Gold Coast had to use the Suns because the Sharks and the Dolphins have been trademarked. I'll follow that up if others try to press it so I can prove my point.

again
another post from the most informative poster on this site with nothing slanderous .. or anythig like that in it
which TGLP removes

what was wrong with this one
made you out to be a bit of a doofus eh ?