2022 New Kits, Sponsors and Suppliers

[The Hallucinating Goose]

2 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

The British Coal logo being slightly wrong still annoys me. Attention to detail.

It probably has to be to avoid some copyright issues over using the actual logo. It's the same reason why these repros of old shirts never have a manufacturers logo on them. 

[Tommygilf]

3 minutes ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

It probably has to be to avoid some copyright issues over using the actual logo. It's the same reason why these repros of old shirts never have a manufacturers logo on them. 

Unless its admiral!

[wilsontown]

4 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

It probably has to be to avoid some copyright issues over using the actual logo. It's the same reason why these repros of old shirts never have a manufacturers logo on them. 

I'm sure you're right, but what's going to happen? Are they going to get sued by British Coal?

[The Hallucinating Goose]

10 minutes ago, wilsontown said:

I'm sure you're right, but what's going to happen? Are they going to get sued by British Coal?

Its a valid point and I can't say I know masses about copyright law, I'm just presuming someone still owns the rights to the brand, I presume all brands are owned by someone, God knows who that person is in this case but when a club is producing a limited edition shirt they won't want to be paying out an extra cost just to get the British Coal logo perfect. 

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

5 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

The British Coal logo being slightly wrong still annoys me. Attention to detail.

And that era's shirts being some of the worst designs we've ever had.

[Man of Kent]

Call me an old f@rt but I’m not really liking the ‘22 kits so far. Warrington’s are quite good but the others I’ve seen don’t say ‘this is a rugby league top’ enough for my taste. 

[The Hallucinating Goose]

7 hours ago, Man of Kent said:

Call me an old f@rt but I’m not really liking the ‘22 kits so far. Warrington’s are quite good but the others I’ve seen don’t say ‘this is a rugby league top’ enough for my taste. 

Old f@rt! No, I must be one too cos I'm of the same opinion as you. The Warrington home is nice but as has been said, it is just a rebadged Paramatta shirt with a massive red target on it and I really don't like the Wakey ones. 

[Dave T]

2 hours ago, The Hallucinating Goose said:

Old f@rt! No, I must be one too cos I'm of the same opinion as you. The Warrington home is nice but as has been said, it is just a rebadged Paramatta shirt with a massive red target on it and I really don't like the Wakey ones. 

Could you link to this Parra shirt that Wire have rebadged? It seems to be a common comment. 

 

[EastLondonMike]

10 hours ago, wilsontown said:

I'm sure you're right, but what's going to happen? Are they going to get sued by British Coal?

The sad thing for me is that some clubs are willing and happy to plagiarise something for the sake of a few quid.

Only my opinion of course,  but i see it as unprofessional and morally wrong.

[gingerjon]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Could you link to this Parra shirt that Wire have rebadged? It seems to be a common comment. 

If you will wear blue and yellow in some kind of hoop formation.

[RigbyLuger]

7 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

The sad thing for me is that some clubs are willing and happy to plagiarise something for the sake of a few quid.

Only my opinion of course,  but i see it as unprofessional and morally wrong.

The companies who do the same with old designs, having no rights to the clubs or designs, are worse.

[RugbyLeagueGeek]

50 minutes ago, EastLondonMike said:

The sad thing for me is that some clubs are willing and happy to plagiarise something for the sake of a few quid.

Only my opinion of course,  but i see it as unprofessional and morally wrong.

I'm not an expert so hoping you know the answer on this, but if the company no longer exists (e.g. such as British Coal, ICI, Hicksons, Norweb), presumably nobody owns the copyright to their logos? Would this mean that kit firms can use them without fear of reprisal?

Edited November 11, 2021 by RugbyLeagueGeek

[EastLondonMike]

52 minutes ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm not an expert so hoping you know the answer on this, but if the company no longer exists (e.g. such as British Coal, ICI, Hicksons, Norweb), presumably nobody owns the copyright to their logos? Would this mean that kit firms can use them without fear of reprisal?

In theory i guess so, but you would have thought most of those companies didn't just cease to exist, they probably would have been consumed by a larger organisation or some such. Which would likely mean that someone somewhere does still own the rights to certain intellectual properties. I could be wrong of course.

But even so, just trying to prosper from something that isn't yours is pretty low in my opinion. I could be completely wrong and maybe in this case Wakefield own the rights for everything used on that jersey.

[MZH]

On 29/10/2021 at 18:20, dead man inc said:

Hull KR home

That looks like an ice hockey jersey.

[EastLondonMike]

2 hours ago, RigbyLuger said:

The companies who do the same with old designs, having no rights to the clubs or designs, are worse.

Again, it's all about making a quick and easy buck. It's lazy, unprofessional and morally wrong, again just IMO 

[dealwithit]

On 10/11/2021 at 04:01, Gav Wilson said:

I like this a lot

[Damien]

44 minutes ago, MZH said:

That looks like an ice hockey jersey.

It really does!

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, RugbyLeagueGeek said:

I'm not an expert so hoping you know the answer on this, but if the company no longer exists (e.g. such as British Coal, ICI, Hicksons, Norweb), presumably nobody owns the copyright to their logos? Would this mean that kit firms can use them without fear of reprisal?

Most of those companies will have been sold (either in full or in part) and their branding will form part of the assets that the buyer purchased. (British Coal was bought by what became UK Coal, and it's mining operations have since been sold). So the brand is still owned by someone and they still have the intellectual property rights. 

There are some principles around "use it or lose it" when it comes to some trademarks (see RL's previous use of "rugby world cup" as a good example), which is why companies defend potential infringements very vigorously. Even for defunct brands, they tend to defend them as it gives them the option to use them at a later date (for example, some "heritage" marketing activity, although I'm not sure that would be relevant with a former coal plant). 

[RigbyLuger]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Most of those companies will have been sold (either in full or in part) and their branding will form part of the assets that the buyer purchased. (British Coal was bought by what became UK Coal, and it's mining operations have since been sold). So the brand is still owned by someone and they still have the intellectual property rights. 

There are some principles around "use it or lose it" when it comes to some trademarks (see RL's previous use of "rugby world cup" as a good example), which is why companies defend potential infringements very vigorously. Even for defunct brands, they tend to defend them as it gives them the option to use them at a later date (for example, some "heritage" marketing activity, although I'm not sure that would be relevant with a former coal plant). 

I'll go back and say it looks better, to me, without the obvious "incorrect" logo. (Not that I'd buy it as I've got that original shirt, and we didn't have names on the back then!)

[NERugbyDad]

2 hours ago, MZH said:

That looks like an ice hockey jersey.

[Castleford Hawk]

A classic….

[Henson Park Old Firm]

Just now, Castleford Hawk said:

A classic….

Castleford take note

[MZH]

38 minutes ago, Castleford Hawk said:

A classic….

Im not crazy about the photo on the back, I feel like they could have referenced that side in a slightly more subtle way. On the whole it's a very nice kit though.

[Wholly Trinity]

12 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

In theory i guess so, but you would have thought most of those companies didn't just cease to exist, they probably would have been consumed by a larger organisation or some such. Which would likely mean that someone somewhere does still own the rights to certain intellectual properties. I could be wrong of course.

But even so, just trying to prosper from something that isn't yours is pretty low in my opinion. I could be completely wrong and maybe in this case Wakefield own the rights for everything used on that jersey.

I know any excuse to have a bash at Wakefield is a valid one, but I think there's some confusion here between trademark and copyright or even design right (which would more suitably cover a shirt design).

The more serious crime is "passing off", which is difficult to prove.

Trademarks need to be renewed every 10 years. 

https://www.gov.uk/renew-your-trade-mark

You can easily search UK trademarks online. The nearest current mark is for Great British Cola.

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext/page/Results

In fact, I'm not sure "British Coal" was ever registered as a trademark.

[EastLondonMike]

1 hour ago, Wholly Trinity said:

I know any excuse to have a bash at Wakefield is a valid one, but I think there's some confusion here between trademark and copyright or even design right (which would more suitably cover a shirt design).

The more serious crime is "passing off", which is difficult to prove.

Trademarks need to be renewed every 10 years. 

https://www.gov.uk/renew-your-trade-mark

You can easily search UK trademarks online. The nearest current mark is for Great British Cola.

https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext/page/Results

In fact, I'm not sure "British Coal" was ever registered as a trademark.

I’m honestly not a Wakey basher. I’d love to see Wakey prosper as a club on and off the pitch.

My views on this would be the same with any club, even the club I support.