Liverpool FC Forum

[Bam]

LFC tries to snare Liverbird trademark
Nov 15 2008 by David Bartlett, Liverpool Daily Post


LIVERPOOL Football Club is seeking to trade mark the Liverbird – setting it on a collision course with the city council.

Last night the city council said it was taking urgent legal advice over the matter, but only has until next Saturday to register its opposition with the UK Intellectual Property Office.

Deputy council leader Cllr Flo Clucas last night hit out at the club’s American owners for attempting to “steal” the city’s iconic crest for commercial gain.

“The Liverbird belongs to the whole city: it cannot be bought and sold for private profit,” she said.

Liverpool FC defended the move saying that it was only seeking to trade mark its own version of the Liverbird because the club is losing a “substantial amount of money” each year due to counterfeit merchandise.

A spokesman for the club insisted LFC would not try to prevent the council or other bodies using the Liverbird logo.

However, there is disquiet at the council about pledges made by the club given the record of owners George Gillett and Tom Hicks and their broken promises relating to the new stadium and the debt that has been loaded on to the club by the pair.

The application made by Liverpool FC is for a wide-ranging trade mark that would cover uses on common metals, precious metals, paper and cardboard, leather or leather imitations, household or kitchen utensils and containers, and clothing.

It cost the club £450 to apply for the trademark, and will cost the council £200 if it wishes to make a formal objection.

Common reasons for opposing trade marks are that the mark is not unique to the applicant or that someone else owns the trade mark (which does not have to be registered itself) which is the same or similar.

Cllr Clucas said: “This is outrageous. The Liverbird belongs to all the people of Liverpool and not one company or organisation.

“This is a symbol of the city and is used not only by the council but also by hundreds of organisations, charities, voluntary groups and sports clubs.

“It would be wrong for them to be prevented or charged for using it in the future.

“We are taking urgent legal advice on the best steps we can take to ensure the Liverbird remains the proud emblem of the whole city and not the private property of one commercial company.”

“The Moores family would never have contemplated stealing the city’s iconic crest for commercial gain, and the present owners should think again before trampling over an important part of the Liverpool’s heritage.”

LFC already has trade marks on “This is Anfield” and the words “You’ll Never Walk Alone” above the club’s logo.

Last night, a spokesman for the club said: “What we are asking to do here is to register our version of the Liverbird. Our club crest has been registered for some time.”

He said counterfeiters used the Liverbird on its own with the words “Liverpool Football Club” beneath as a way round trade mark infringement.

“If you look at Liverpool City Council’s Liverbird and ours, they are markedly different – there’s no way you can confuse the two.”

He insisted that the club would not try to stop other organisations using their design of the Liverbird, say on the letterhead of businesses.

“Counterfeit goods cost the club a substantial amount of money each year.

“The Liverbird is part and parcel of the city we are not remotely going anywhere near that.”


http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpo....2262735

[maypaxvobiscum]

what do the scousers on here think? Clucas does have a point i feel.
but maybe those who live in Liverpool would know better as they were brought up there closer to the roots and traiditions.
so they might share a different view.

[Igor Zidane]

what do the scousers on here think? Clucas does have a point i feel.
being maybe those who live in Liverpool would know better as they were brought up there closer to the roots and traiditions.
so they might share a different view.

Personally mate , being a scouser . THe liverbird belongs to and respresents Liverpool the city and not just LFC , so i'm fully behind the council on this one . THe yanks are obviously looking to make a quick buck (as usual ) and are on a hiding to nothing if they think they can take on Liverpool city council and the people of Liverpool . No chance .

[andy_g]

if they are only going to try to copyright the liverbird in the exact version it appears on the club badge then i don't see a problem

[Igor Zidane]

if they are only going to try to copyright the liverbird in the exact version it appears on the club badge then i don't see a problem

The problem lies Andy in that the Liverbird in whatever guise represents Liverpool City and not LFC , it won't happen mate . As much as i dislike Everton , there supporters are as much apart of this city as us , the Liverbird represents there city aswell . It's never goinng to happen mate.

[maypaxvobiscum]

i agree with Igor here. the liverbird represents the city as a whole. i think they yanks are just trying to pull off some marketing gimmick. what do they think we are? Disney and the liverbird their Mickey?   

[GOAT_2.0]

The liverbird is the symbol of the city not just the club

[andy_g]

i agree that the liverbird is the symbol of the city and represents everybody regardless of the club they support, or even if they like football or not. the liverbird as it appears on the club badge however is different from the liverbirds look out over pier head and as such represents the club. if we are looking at protecting or improving the clubs income by protecting the rights of using that particular version of the liverbird, regardless of whether twit and tw@t are behind it or not, then i have no objections.

writing this i'm wondering how many evertonians feel strongly attached to the symbol of the liverbird due to the connotations it has already with LFC.

[Bam]

what do the scousers on here think? Clucas does have a point i feel.
being maybe those who live in Liverpool would know better as they were brought up there closer to the roots and traiditions.
so they might share a different view.

Personally mate , being a scouser . THe liverbird belongs to and respresents Liverpool the city and not just LFC , so i'm fully behind the council on this one . THe yanks are obviously looking to make a quick buck (as usual ) and are on a hiding to nothing if they think they can take on Liverpool city council and the people of Liverpool . No chance .

Thats fair enough Igor and I totally agree with the Liverbird being the emblem of Liverpool.

But for any business owner its paramount to explore every avenue possible to ensure finacial revenue. Even though its a dead end in this case, it was worth finding out.

[Igor Zidane]

i agree that the liverbird is the symbol of the city and represents everybody regardless of the club they support, or even if they like football or not. the liverbird as it appears on the club badge however is different from the liverbirds look out over pier head and as such represents the club. if we are looking at protecting or improving the clubs income by protecting the rights of using that particular version of the liverbird, regardless of whether twit and tw@t are behind it or not, then i have no objections.

writing this i'm wondering how many evertonians feel strongly attached to the symbol of the liverbird due to the connotations it has already with LFC.

I understand what your saying Andy , but the average joe on the street doesn't see the difference in styles of liverbird ,they only see THE LIVERBIRDS and what they represent . As far as the Evertonians , well there probably are a few who only see the Liverbird as a symblo of LFC . I reckion the vast majority will think the same as me though ,and see it as a symbol of our city.

[maypaxvobiscum]

if i was an everton fan, id feel invaded and more chased out then ever
Andy did bring up a good point about the 'type' of liverbird used. that would mean those people who create fake jerseys can be sued if they use that particular type of liverbird right?

[Igor Zidane]

what do the scousers on here think? Clucas does have a point i feel.
being maybe those who live in Liverpool would know better as they were brought up there closer to the roots and traiditions.
so they might share a different view.

Personally mate , being a scouser . THe liverbird belongs to and respresents Liverpool the city and not just LFC , so i'm fully behind the council on this one . THe yanks are obviously looking to make a quick buck (as usual ) and are on a hiding to nothing if they think they can take on Liverpool city council and the people of Liverpool . No chance .

Thats fair enough Igor and I totally agree with the Liverbird being the emblem of Liverpool.

But for any business owner its paramount to explore every avenue possible to ensure finacial revenue. Even though its a dead end in this case, it was worth finding out.

Your right Bam , i can fully understand why they would want to do this ,it makes perfect sense  comercially . Ethically it is a different matter. Like you say though ,it's a dead end .

[GOAT_2.0]

 

[Reg]

if i was an everton fan, id feel invaded and more chased out then ever
Andy did bring up a good point about the 'type' of liverbird used. that would mean those people who create fake jerseys can be sued if they use that particular type of liverbird right?

Good point Maxy, even the Everscum have the right to be proud of the Liver bird.

LFC are barking up the wrong tree.

As I said when I posted the article in the first place.   

[zarababe]

They're only trying to trademark 'our LFC version' - which has it's own variation - typically it gets blown out of proportion. The club looses millions due to fakes using the LFC 'Verision', it's a good idea nowt to get your undies in a twist