Guest Bruiser Chong Report post Posted April 7, 2003 Is WWE only required to blur the "scratch" logo when showing their old stock footage or any WWF logo? I could have sworn that it was just the scratch logo that was used from 1998-2002, but others have been telling me different. So which is it? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted April 7, 2003 Just the scratch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest mickberna Report post Posted April 7, 2003 I don't get it myself... why is a scratchy logo more detrimental to the World Wildlife Fund's reputation than the old WWF logo? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted April 7, 2003 It isn't, and I think their huge concern was the WWF.com web site, but the scratch logo wound up being the victim of the whole thing. And they still can use the scratch, but if they do then it can't go into England. Last week at a corner in downtown Seattle, a streetlamp had a sticker on it with a gunsight on the Panda and the text "WWF OFF!" Was kind of amused. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted April 7, 2003 From WWE quarterly report Legal Proceedings World Wide Fund for Nature In April 2000, the World Wide Fund for Nature and its American affiliate, the World Wildlife Fund (collectively, the "Fund") instituted legal proceedings against the Company in the English High Court seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages for alleged breaches of a 1994 agreement between the Fund and the Company regarding the use of the initials "wwf." The Fund alleged that the Company's use of the initials "wwf" in various contexts, including (i) the wwf.com and wwfshopzone.com internet domain names and in the contents of various of its websites, and (ii) the Company's "scratch" letter logo, were in violation of the parties' agreement. In January 2001, the Fund filed for summary judgment on its claims. On August 10, 2001, the trial judge granted the Fund's motion for summary judgment, holding that the Company breached the parties' agreement by using the "wwf" website addresses and scratch logo, and that a trial is not warranted on those issues. On October 1, 2001, the judge issued a form of written injunction barring the Company, either on its own or through its officers, servants, agents, subsidiaries, licensees or sublicensees, its television or other affiliates or otherwise, of most uses of the initials "wwf," including in connection with the "wwf" website addresses and the use of the scratch logo. On February 27, 2002, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial judge's decision and dismissed the Company's appeal, and on June 10, 2002, the House of Lords declined to hear the Company's appeal. The Company was given five months from the date of the House of Lords' decision, until November 10, 2002, to comply with that injunction. In compliance with the injunction, the Company has taken the following significant steps, many of which go beyond the literal requirements of the injunction: (1) changed its name to "World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc."; (2) switched its initials to "WWE"; (3) revised its logo to be a scratch "WW"; (4) incorporated these changes into, among other things, the Company's television and pay-per-view shows, promotional materials, advertising campaigns, statutory filings with federal and state agencies, and corporate stationery and corporate facilities; (5) advised its licensees and business partners of the terms of the injunction; and (6) directed its licensees and business partners to refrain from using the initials "WWF" in any manner which, if done by the Company, would be a breach of any of the prohibitions of the injunction. However, the elimination of certain historical uses of the scratch logo, including, specifically, WWE's archival video footage containing the scratch logo during the period 1998-May 2002 and the scratch logo embedded in programming code of WWE-licensed video games created during the period 1999-2001 is, as a practical matter, not possible and legally not consistent with WWE's exclusive rights of ownership and distribution of those copyrighted works under the United States Copyright Act. The Company initiated discussions with the Fund in the summer of 2002 to attempt to resolve outstanding issues as well as to seek an overall settlement of the parties' dispute. In connection with those ongoing discussions, which continued through October 2002, the Fund proposed to extend the injunction compliance date until February 10, 2003, which proposal the Company accepted in writing. In reliance on that agreement, the Company advised its licensees that the injunction would not take effect until February 2003. On October 29, 2002, less than two weeks before the injunction compliance date, the Fund, through its Legal Advisor, took the position that there was no agreement and that it would not jointly move the Court to extend the injunction compliance date. In addition, the Fund for the first time asserted damages associated with the Company's use of the initials "wwf" and claimed that at least $360 million would be required to fund a multi-year media advertising campaign to remedy the Fund's alleged loss of recognition/exclusivity as a result of the Company's use of the initials "wwf." The Fund, through its Legal Advisor, demanded a payment of $90 million prior to the injunction compliance date to settle its alleged damages claims and resolve all remaining issues. The Company vigorously rejects the Fund's demand and contends that the Fund's tactics are a bad faith attempt to coerce the Company into an unwarranted cash payment of $90 million. Indeed, despite repeated inquires by the Company throughout the parties' discussions, the Fund has never provided the Company with any documentation or support for any alleged damage claims, nor has the Fund come forward with any evidence throughout the entire litigation that it suffered any actual injury to its fundraising and/or environmental conservation activities as a result of the Company's conduct. The Company strongly disputes that the Fund has suffered any such damages. The Company is unable to predict the outcome of any adjudication of the Fund's claims in an English court if the Fund were actually to present a damages claim. An unfavorable outcome of the Fund's damages claims, however, may have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or results of operations. In addition to the damages claimed by the Fund against the Company, the Company also faces potential claims for losses, which could be substantial, that may be sustained by third party licensees in connection with the enforcement of the injunction against them for sale of licensed products containing the scratch logo after November 10, 2002. At a hearing on November 25 and 26, 2002, on application for relief by THQ/Jakks Pacific LLC ("THQ/Jakks"), the Company's videogame licensee, the English court ruled that THQ/Jakks' distribution of certain products containing historically embedded references to the WWF scratch logo visible only through the gameplaying functionality of the videogames would be in violation of the injunction and place both THQ/Jakks and the Company in contempt of court. THQ/Jakks filed an appeal of the English court's ruling. The Company sought and was granted permission to intervene in that appeal. A hearing was held before the English Court of Appeals on February 24-25, 2003. The Court of Appeals has not yet issued its ruling Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zetterberg is God 0 Report post Posted April 7, 2003 The thing that pisses me off is that all of this could have been avoided if Vince had just refrained from using the WWF initials in the U.K. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted April 7, 2003 I thought it was just the scratch logo but MartyEWR produced a photo from a recent WWE magazine of Mene Gene and Hogan, from when Hogan first won the title, that had the old block WWF logo blurred. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jim Ross Report post Posted April 7, 2003 Well i always assumed that everything 'WWF' was outlawed. Take Silvervision.co.uk this was a company that stocked every single available WWF video. Now after this court thing they are left with about 10 titles to sell, the recent WWE PPVs that is.. and they cant sell anything pre-scratch logo either. Dont know if thats relevent. Ive always been under the impression that the company name was the issue and not a particular logo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted April 7, 2003 *read the report* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jobber of the Week Report post Posted April 7, 2003 Take Silvervision.co.uk this was a company that stocked every single available WWF video. Now after this court thing they are left with about 10 titles to sell, the recent WWE PPVs that is.. and they cant sell anything pre-scratch logo either. That's because they're UK, and the ruling gives them a lot less leeway over there. Here, you can still find old video games with the F selling new and the like. They're not using the F in anything new, but in the UK they can't even use it in anything old. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Bruiser Chong Report post Posted April 7, 2003 So if I'm gathering things correctly from the report, they're only prohibited from using the scratch logo or ALL logos? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted April 8, 2003 The Fund alleged that the Company's use of the initials "wwf" in *various contexts*, including (i) the wwf.com and wwfshopzone.com internet domain names and in the contents of various of its websites, and (ii) the Company's *"scratch" letter logo*, were in violation of the parties' agreement. AND However, the elimination of certain historical uses of the *scratch logo*, including, specifically, *WWE's archival video footage* containing the scratch logo during the period *1998-May 2002* and the scratch logo embedded in programming code of WWE-licensed video games created during the period 1999-2001 is, as a practical matter, not possible and legally not consistent with WWE's exclusive rights of ownership and distribution of those copyrighted works under the United States Copyright Act. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JDMattitudeV1 Report post Posted April 8, 2003 I still don't know why Vince just didn't give them a few million and tell them to fuck off. All they wanted was the money anyway, and if you have to give up WWF.com then so be it. That way they could keep their name and sell all the stuff they want. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest teke184 Report post Posted April 8, 2003 My mistake earlier... the old WWF block logo wasn't blurred out... it was airbrushed into a WWE block logo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RavishingRickRudo Report post Posted April 8, 2003 They didn't just want money, they wanted their name back because the WW(E) abused it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
