Liverpool FC Forum

by **hello_red** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 7:55 pm

Ciggy wrote:How low can these scumbags get? This is the most shocking thing they have ever done, I am lost for words seriously.
HJC should say well we want the flame copywrited then LFC would have to remove it from the badge.

I am livid over this day by day my love for this club is dying.

A very sad day if this is all true. I would be inclined to agree with Ciggy on this issue. Im all for the expansion of Liverpool FC but not at the expense of a charity shop dedicated to support for families affected by Hillsborough.

There has to be a line drawn on corporate expansion and surely this is it. As for the Liverbird... Its a sign of Liverpool the city not Liverpool FC.

by **NANNY RED** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 8:58 pm

Cant find the words to comment on this . Lets just say i feel ive been kicked in the guts an spat in my face an theres :censored:

all i can do abar it .

Bast.ards of the highest order

by **Ciggy** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:09 pm

Liverpool City Council said last week.

"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."

Money the root of all evil indeed.

by **bigmick** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:15 pm

I simply cannot believe this is true. Even from a commercial poin tof view it makes no sense, let alone from a moral standpoint. it would be a PR disaster and akin to shooting yourself in the foot with a Bazooka. I'd be absolutely amazed if it was true, and then needless to say totally fecked off. It can't be though can it?

by **Rush Job** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:22 pm

Fking shocking, is there any way to voice our disaprovel, like a petition or such like?

by **Ciggy** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:24 pm

Liverpool FC to copyright Liverbird?
by Tony McConville

A row has erupted over plans by Liverpool Football Club to claim copyright on the famous Liverbird emblem.

The mythical bird is the icon of the city of Liverpool and part of the Anfield club's badge and now the Reds want the right to control the image.

But leaders of Liverpool City Council furious and are laying plans for a legal challenge.

Town Hall chiefs have only seven days in which to register official opposition to the application for by Liverpool FC to register the Liverbird as its trademark at the UK Intellectual Property Office.

Liverpool City Council's Deputy Leader Flo Clucas condemned the club's American owners over the move to register the city's historic emblem.

Lib/Dem councillor Mrs Clucas said:"This is outrageous. The Liverbird belongs to all the people of Liverpool and not one company or organisation.

"It is the symbol of the city and is used not only by the council but also by hundreds of other organisations, charities, voluntary groups and sports clubs.

"The Liverbird belongs to the whole city of Liverpool. It cannot be registered, bought and sold for private profit.

"It would be wrong for them to risk being 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."

Grounds for opposing trade marks include arguments that it is not unique or that someone else owns the trade mark which is the same or similar.

But Liverpool FC defended its move saying that it is seeking only to trade mark its own version of the Liverbird because the club is losing revenue through the actions of counterfeiters selling fake club merchandise.

And the Reds insist they would not try to prevent the council or other bodies using the Liverbird.

A Liverpool FC spokesman 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.

"If you look at Liverpool City Council's Liverbird and ours, they are markedly different. There is no way you can confuse the two.

"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."

by **rafa09** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:39 pm

if this is true, we are at the end of LFC being a familly club. who is responsible they want fookin shooting

by **Emerald Red** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:40 pm

Rush Job wrote:Fking shocking, is there any way to voice our disaprovel, like a petition or such like?

You can bet your left bol!ock there will be. These knobheads underestimate the voice of the fans still even now after all that's went on. The Carlsberg fiasco is just one example of a petition getting the job done.

by **RUSHIE#9** » Tue Dec 02, 2008 10:40 pm

bigmick wrote:I simply cannot believe this is true. Even from a commercial poin tof view it makes no sense, let alone from a moral standpoint. it would be a PR disaster and akin to shooting yourself in the foot with a Bazooka. I'd be absolutely amazed if it was true, and then needless to say totally fecked off. It can't be though can it?

It's not like the current regime haven't got previous though is it?

Reading RAWK one of the people that works in the shop has removed the offending articles(that's not what I consider the right term but

). Does anyone know or can describe what they look like, i.e. do they have the actual Liverpool crest on or is it just the Liverbird?
If it's just the Liverbird then HJC should tell the clueless halfwit to shove their threats up their @rse as their case would probably never make it to court.
If it's the club crest then the club would have a case (a very immoral one at that) but it is still an outrage that I am still struggling to comprehend if true.

by **zarababe** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:43 pm

just cos we r top of the league should not detract from the need to continue with protests to oust these two - lets not play the typical supporter who portests only when the going gets tough on the pitch.

The club faces a real financial crisis with the amount of debt and liability these two have placed on the club and pressure needs to bear on them to sell

as for the quote re: the moores family would never apply for the Liverbird - well lets face it the f'uckers sold the whole club down the river :angry:

by **J*o*n*D*o*e** » Wed Dec 03, 2008 10:50 pm

from what ive read on rawk no one from the club has said anything to the HJC

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:40 am

Gerry took the stuff down as a precaution , it was his doing , noone from LFC have spoken to HJC . The story is wrong , possible wires crossed somewhere ,but LFC have not requested that he takes them down . FACT .

by **Reg** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:11 am

I understand it now.

If the club can enforce a copyright on the Liverbird, it increases the clubs asset value.

Its Hicks and his leverage tricks again, buy it cheap, dress it up and sell high.

Tw@t.

by **Effes** » Thu Dec 04, 2008 8:33 am

Thats why threads or posts conveying such stories should have a link to a source.

Thought that was a rule here.

Liverpool FC Forum

Well and truly sold our soul? - Can it be true?

Who is online