The mancityfans.net football forum

Telegraph reporting among others that

Clothing brand SuperDry are suing us for having their name on our training kit.......

Which part of Asahi super "dry" is a brand in its own right don't they get? clearly on our shirts it is two words.

Papers were lodged in London mid December requesting an injunction to restrain and pursuing costs from City.

Even if it looked remotely like it, then their beef would be with Asahi the fucknuts!!!

I know it's bullshit, but it's another negative story against the club for sheeple to beat us with.

CTID Hants wrote:Telegraph reporting among others that

Clothing brand SuperDry are suing us for having their name on our training kit.......

Which part of Asahi super "dry" is a brand in its own right don't they get? clearly on our shirts it is two words.

Papers were lodged in London mid December requesting an injunction to restrain and pursuing costs from City.

Even if it looked remotely like it, then their beef would be with Asahi the fucknuts!!!

I know it's bullshit, but it's another negative story against the club for sheeple to beat us with.

A quick goggle of "SUPERDRY registered trademark" and sure enough they are British ,complained about web domain names and won, mainly because the chinese company responding couldn't be bothered. Interestingly if you goggle "Super Dry" you can get a man's hair paste Super-Dry or Superdry Vegan bodyspray for men. I can't see how they can have a go at City advertising a beer brand, when Goggle are sending me adverts for such crappy products - essentially the same thing. Or are goggle too big and would it be biting the hand that feeds you , since they need goggle to get internet sales ?


It seems their stock market value has taken a bash since 2019. down to about 32 quid from a serious high of 544 quid before Covid kicked in . Business losses of nearly 150m in 2022 , no wonder they are looking for cash cows. Still can't see why they are going after City and not the brewer.

116

zuricity wrote:Still can't see why they are going after City and not the brewer.

I'm guessing it's because their trademark only covers clothing and similar apparel. If we named a VIP box the Asahi Super Dry box, it wouldn't really be trademark infringement.

Likewise, if Puma (the forklift truck company) sponsored a team, I guess Puma (the shirt manufacturer) would probably go after the club involved for making the agreement. Or if the French president sponsored some club, Macron might have a thing or two to say about it.

BlueinBosnia wrote:

zuricity wrote:Still can't see why they are going after City and not the brewer.

I'm guessing it's because their trademark only covers clothing and similar apparel. If we named a VIP box the Asahi Super Dry box, it wouldn't really be trademark infringement.

Likewise, if Puma (the forklift truck company) sponsored a team, I guess Puma (the shirt manufacturer) would probably go after the club involved for making the agreement. Or if the French president sponsored some club, Macron might have a thing or two to say about it.

Yes, you are correct when you say you are guessing.

Lawyers would have a field day and earn loads of money analysing trademark infringements.

Unknown/shit/failing* brand seeks cheap exposure.

*delete as applicable

Tokyo Blue wrote:Unknown/shit/failing* brand seeks cheap exposure.

*delete as applicable

All of above, and i hope we finish them off with a counter defermation

zuricity wrote:

BlueinBosnia wrote:

zuricity wrote:Still can't see why they are going after City and not the brewer.

I'm guessing it's because their trademark only covers clothing and similar apparel. If we named a VIP box the Asahi Super Dry box, it wouldn't really be trademark infringement.

Likewise, if Puma (the forklift truck company) sponsored a team, I guess Puma (the shirt manufacturer) would probably go after the club involved for making the agreement. Or if the French president sponsored some club, Macron might have a thing or two to say about it.

Yes, you are correct when you say you are guessing.

Lawyers would have a field day and earn loads of money analysing trademark infringements.

Looking at what the King's Counsel representing Superdry has said, it seems he's guessing along similar lines to me, as well: "identical with or similar to the mark for which the Superdry Registrations are registered, in circumstances liable to give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public."

^^^^^^

if you are referring to the case that i quoted, in which the firm won. There is a similarity because of the URL names the accused made up. Also, the accused failed to respond - completely .

However i fail to see how a logo as used on the City shirts, with three words on three separate lines looks anything like a logo of one word with the registered trademark ® in it. How any one can confuse two entirely different markets, the beer industry and naff clothing.


Furthermore the beer logo clearly identifies a type of beer , whereas the other logo can be stamped on any type of naff cloth design. Just like adidas do. Did adidas sue the company selling similar abibas cheap and poor material products ?

The major questions are , why are they not going after Asahi ? Why now of all times ?

I’ll be suing Super Dry for using the term that references my sex life. See you in court.

zuricity wrote:^^^^^^

if you are referring to the case that i quoted, in which the firm won. There is a similarity because of the URL names the accused made up. Also, the accused failed to respond - completely .

However i fail to see how a logo as used on the City shirts, with three words on three separate lines looks anything like a logo of one word with the registered trademark ® in it. How any one can confuse two entirely different markets, the beer industry and naff clothing.


Furthermore the beer logo clearly identifies a type of beer , whereas the other logo can be stamped on any type of naff cloth design. Just like adidas do. Did adidas sue the company selling similar abibas cheap and poor material products ?

The major questions are , why are they not going after Asahi ? Why now of all times ?

No, I'm referring to this specific case.

If Asahi had created promotional umbrellas or flip-flops with Asahi Super 'Dry' written on them as a promotional giveaway, I'm sure they'd try to go after them directly, as that would likewise create (in a lawyer's eyes, at least) "circumstances likely to cause confusion". We signed the contract to put the brand on our shirts, therefore we're the most obvious party to go after in a scenario like this. A combination of the words 'Super' and 'Dry' is simply too common for Superdry to have a universal trademark claim, but they will be able to claim it for a certain domain, i.e. clothing and apparel (similar to 'Air' with Nike - they can't go after airlines, but would certainly be able to go after Ronhill if they started a 'Ronhill Air' marque, and probably even a non-running company, like Billabong or Jimmy Choo).

I agree - due to the logo design - that it's speculative at best, and in a worst-case scenario for us would probably involve a re-arrangement of the logo and a token payment of damages.

However, I don't understand this 'Why now of all times?' line-of-thinking. I'd really like someone to propose a 'window' where this kind of claim would be suitable to make: it seems to have become a go-to argument for conspiracy theorists during and in the run-up to:
The transfer window (most of summer)
The start of the season (Aug and Sept)
The crunch CL ties (Oct and Nov)
The heavy Christmas schedule (Dec and Jan)
CL knockouts (Feb to end of season)
The league run-in (late March to May)
Final games (the remainder of May)
End-of-season celebrations (June)
Also add to that 'right at the start/end of an international break' and individual key fixtures that happen throughout the season, and it seems to me that 95%+ of the year is an inopportune time.

Would you like to say when, amongst all that, it would be least 'against us' for some negative news to come out?

Mase wrote:I’ll be suing Super Dry for using the term that references my sex life. See you in court.

Mase wrote:I’ll be suing Super Dry for using the term that references my sex life. See you in court.

You letting Alek still dry bum you Liam?

ruralblue wrote:

Mase wrote:I’ll be suing Super Dry for using the term that references my sex life. See you in court.

You letting Alek still dry bum you Liam?

Wouldn’t say no to a Kola, Otta, Jack triple decker sandwich to be honest.

Mase wrote:

ruralblue wrote:

Mase wrote:I’ll be suing Super Dry for using the term that references my sex life. See you in court.

You letting Alek still dry bum you Liam?

Wouldn’t say no to a Kola, Otta, Jack triple decker sandwich to be honest.

Would you? You've never said!

Mase wrote:

ruralblue wrote:

Mase wrote:I’ll be suing Super Dry for using the term that references my sex life. See you in court.

You letting Alek still dry bum you Liam?

Wouldn’t say no to a Kola, Otta, Jack triple decker sandwich to be honest.

Subway sandwich company might have something to say about your infringement there Mase

Well, if City fans did buy their tatt then they won’t be doing now.

This is cropping up everywhere, typical i suppose.

I don't understand these kind of things so this might be a stupid question but why would we be sued as opposed to the sponsor who allegedly infringed?

Two more articles on my news feed.

All very strange