Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 21, 2006
Renaming the Team

There may be a problem with continuing to call the Washington franchise the Nationals.

According to a report in The New York Times on Tuesday, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted a request for federal trademark registration on the name Washington Nationals to Bygone Sports last week. The Cincinnati-based company, which specializes in historic trademarks and sports apparel, applied for the trademark in September 2002.

According to the Times, Major League Baseball, aware of Bygone Sports' claim to the Washington Nationals name, thought it had reached an agreement with the company for the name's rights when the franchise was moved from Montreal in 2004.

It all comes down to whether an oral agreement is binding. My suggestion for a name is here.


Posted by David Pinto at 01:02 PM | Team Movements | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I've long thought that Grays would be the best choice. Simple, distinctive, and historical.

Posted by: Adam Villani at February 21, 2006 02:05 PM

How about the Washington Future Contrations?

Posted by: sabernar at February 21, 2006 02:40 PM

Nationals is so lame that I've always assumed they chose it just so that a new owner could pick a new name.

Grays is so obviously the best choice that I can't imagine any other reason for going with Nationals. I do like the idea of "Nats" as a continuing informal nickname, though.

Posted by: Joltin Joe Orsulak at February 21, 2006 03:34 PM

After this is all over, Selig is going to write a book called How to Do Nothing Right

Posted by: Benjamin Kabak at February 21, 2006 04:41 PM

I've always referred to them as the Ex-'Spos.

Posted by: Astro Annie at February 21, 2006 07:08 PM

Oral agreements are perfectly binding in and of themselves, this much I can tell you as a 1L law student. In fact, the written contract, with the exception of certain kinds of contracts covered under the Statute of Frauds, isn't anything more than a formal memorialization of the agreement already reached orally.

As is always the case with these cases, the question will come down to whether a binding enforceable contract was actually formed between the two parties. Without knowing the specifics I simply can't say one way or another, but I can tell you that there's no reason an oral K should be as binding as a written K.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 21, 2006 08:13 PM

"shouldN'T," that is.

Posted by: Jeff B. at February 21, 2006 08:14 PM

I agree with the Grays. Is there any word on them considering it?

Posted by: e at February 21, 2006 09:31 PM

The Portland Rain

Posted by: Colin at February 22, 2006 12:19 PM

Bring back the Senators!

Posted by: MAW at February 22, 2006 01:13 PM

the notsoyankees

Posted by: Colin at February 22, 2006 10:36 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?