England's new shirt sponsors?
This particular member of the IPKat team is a little squeamish about displaying naughty words and slogans on his weblog, even to the point of being reluctant to display real registered trade marks, none of which are actually rude in their own right. However, he notes that, following the abysmal performance of the England football team in the World Cup, the annoyance and frustration of supporters is bound to express itself in a variety of forms. Much of fans' resentment is at the apparent inverse correlation between the success of the national team in major competitions and the degree of commercialisation of the sport.
The hyperlink at the end of this paragraph carries with it a Bad Taste Warning. Do not click if you are easily offended. The image in question is captioned "England's New Shirt Sponsors" and the message is a powerful one. A legal question remains as to whether any of the proprietors of the registered trade marks in question has any redress. There is no defence of parody to an action for trade mark infringement in Europe -- but who says that there has been an infringement? All of the marks are well-known, and arguably none might wish to be associated with England's next international soccer campaign for fear of tarnishing its own good reputation. One of the marks is also a descriptive term for a style of football, made famous itself by the Dutch national team in the 1970s. In at least one case the proprietor's registration covers the goods in question -- but who can say that there is any use in the course of trade? The message may be simple, but the legal issues are many.
The hyperlink at the end of this paragraph carries with it a Bad Taste Warning. Do not click if you are easily offended. The image in question is captioned "England's New Shirt Sponsors" and the message is a powerful one. A legal question remains as to whether any of the proprietors of the registered trade marks in question has any redress. There is no defence of parody to an action for trade mark infringement in Europe -- but who says that there has been an infringement? All of the marks are well-known, and arguably none might wish to be associated with England's next international soccer campaign for fear of tarnishing its own good reputation. One of the marks is also a descriptive term for a style of football, made famous itself by the Dutch national team in the 1970s. In at least one case the proprietor's registration covers the goods in question -- but who can say that there is any use in the course of trade? The message may be simple, but the legal issues are many.
You can see the artwork in question for yourself here.
