WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums
Reply

Old 05-08-2011, 10:49 PM   #1 (permalink)
~Believe~
 
JeffHardyFanatic88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,351
JeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friends
Default WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

During the time the WWE was fighting with the WWF (World Wildlife Fund) I was only about 10 so I didn't understand the extent and time length of this legal battle.
MSN.com recently showed a article quoting Vince about the legal battle and they revealed how much it cost the WWE to change their products from WWF to WWE. I thought it would be an interesting read for some of you! The minyanville.com article that is featured was written in 2010, but I thought I would show it as it describes the most about the battle and some of you (like myself) may not have seen it.

MSN.COM short article leading to the large one


These days we know the WWF as the World Wildlife Fund, an international conservation group dedicated to animal and environmental protection. First launched in Switzerland, the WWF trademarked its name, logo and panda in 1961.

The wrestling company that came to share the WWF acronym was first launched in 1979, but at that time it was called Titan Sports. The company took a new name, the World Wrestling Federation, a decade later. The two disparate "WWF" groups were immediately embroiled in a legal dispute, one that would last for 13 years. Finally, in 2001, a court in London sided with the environmentalists. In 2002, an appeals court upheld the ruling. Declared one World Wildlife Fund spokesperson at the time, "It's been the wrestlers against a cute little panda bear. And the panda won."

The wrestling company let go of the "F" and changed its name to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), perhaps a more fitting name for its faux-sport product.

So how much did the WWE spend to re-brand its many products? Continue reading



MINYANVILLE.COM ARTICLE


The two organizations couldn’t have been more different, but they were unceremoniously joined by the same acronym.

The WWF -- World Wildlife Fund -- and the WWF -- World Wrestling Federation -- were engaged in a legal headlock for 13 years before the conservation group was given exclusive rights to the acronym in 2002. The wrestling company ceded its "F" and changed its name to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE), perhaps more appropriate for its brand of faux sport inside the ring.

“It’s been a long time coming,” a spokesman for the Canadian World Wildlife Fund said at the time. “WWF is really vital for us. We’ve been building that brand equity for so long. It’s been the wrestlers against a cute little panda bear. And the panda won.”

The question of who owns the letters of the alphabet seems strange, but in this case several judges had to answer that.

The World Wildlife Fund, based in Switzerland, trademarked the WWF logo in 1961, soon after its founding. In 1989, it changed its name to World Wide Fund for Nature, but kept its logo and retained the WWF initials in the U.S. and Canada. That same year, the wrestling organization, started in 1979 as Titan Sports, applied to trademark its name as the WWF following a reorganization.

The environmental group was worried that its image would be tarnished by the likes of professional wrestlers. These were the days of bawdy stars like Hulk Hogan and the Iron Sheikh. The two groups reached an agreement on how to use the logo, but by the early 1990s the fund alleged that the federation had violated it.

Initially, the two sides were not at war. “When we first registered our name in the early 1980’s, the wildlife fund did not raise any challenges,” Linda McMahon, now a candidate for US Senate in Connecticut and WWE’s then-chief executive, told the New York Times in 2002.

But the fund got a Swiss injunction against the wrestling federation in 1993, “and threatened to take it around the world,” McMahon said.

That led to an agreement in 1994 which placed limits on the federation’s use of the initials. But, three years later, the fund sued again, saying the wrestling group breached the trademark by, among other things, setting up its website wwf.com. (The fund’s website is wwf.org.)

Four years later, the High Court in London sided with the wildlife fund. In February, 2002, an appeals court upheld the ruling. (One more appeal to the British House of Lords was tossed out.) The court ruled that the fund had a right to be worried about its link to the wrestling federation.

In his written judgment, Justice Robin Jacob said that the charity was concerned by criminal proceedings against the federation in the US While the judge acknowledged that some look at wrestling as “harmless and perhaps enjoyable nonsense,” he said others consider it “insalubrious,” “meretricious” and “unsavory." The wildlife fund was justified, he said, in wanting to avoid any mistaken identity. “Why take a chance that there might be some sort of link-up?” he asked.

The judge did not see the decision as a difficult one. He described the federation’s arguments, among other things, as “hopeless” and “astonishingly poor.”

Certainly, the name change hasn’t caused much harm to the WWE. It had to shell out money (reportedly as much as $50 million) to change WWF products, promotional material, its logo and stock symbol on the New York Stock Exchange. But its entertainment juggernaut has continued unchecked. Its market cap is now $1 billion. Every week 14.4 million viewers watch its shows.

Its brand remains less than tasteful but, for its many viewers, that is part of the charm. In this match, however, that so-called charm is exactly why the giant panda left the ring the winner.
JeffHardyFanatic88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 05-08-2011, 10:51 PM   #2 (permalink)
Vince gives me a comedy gimmick
 
kokepepsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,059
kokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new herekokepepsi better hope they're relatively new here
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation

wait you weren't born in 1988? whats up with your name then?
kokepepsi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 10:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
~Believe~
 
JeffHardyFanatic88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,351
JeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friends
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation

Quote:
Originally Posted by kokepepsi View Post
wait you weren't born in 1988? whats up with your name then?
sorry I pressed the wrong number, I was about 13 when the WWE lost the battle in 2002. I turn 23 this September/born in 1988. I understood what was going on but didn't know the court case lasted as long as it did.
JeffHardyFanatic88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 11:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Moron
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: India
Posts: 1,389
John_Cena_is_God is an after thoughtJohn_Cena_is_God is an after thought
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

anyways nice article
thanks OP
John_Cena_is_God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 12:40 AM   #5 (permalink)
~Believe~
 
JeffHardyFanatic88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,351
JeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friendsJeffHardyFanatic88 needs to make some friends
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_Cena_is_God View Post
anyways nice article
thanks OP
no problem glad ya liked it
JeffHardyFanatic88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 12:50 AM   #6 (permalink)
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms and Protector of the Realm
 
TMPRKO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,240
TMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new hereTMPRKO better hope they're relatively new here
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

As an American company, WWF should have laughed at a British court ruling. Sure, it would cost them a lot of short term business in England, but they would be unaffected elsewhere and keeping their brand and name recognition may have leveled that off.
__________________
TMPRKO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 12:51 AM   #7 (permalink)
Main Eventing Gyms
 
Mr. Rager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 545
Mr. Rager should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsMr. Rager should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsMr. Rager should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

Pussy ass environmentalists.
Mr. Rager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 12:52 AM   #8 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Stone Cold X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 613
Stone Cold X is an after thought
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

I too knew about the case, but I did not not know it was a lawsuit 10-13 years in the making.
__________________
Stone Cold X - Owner of CODForums
Call of Duty Forums
Stone Cold X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 01:01 AM   #9 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Frozen Inferno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Chillicothe, OH
Posts: 872
Frozen Inferno Frozen Inferno
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

Maybe they should have looked into fighting this for longer than the 13 years. An American company based in Connecticut being sued by a International organization based in Switzerland was resolved in a British court? LOL WUT?

"In 1986, the organization changed its name to World Wide Fund for Nature"
So what's wrong with WWFN?
__________________
Ignorance is the greatest weapon of tyranny...
Frozen Inferno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 01:14 AM   #10 (permalink)
HE'S FAT
 
Rocky Mark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 7,661
Rocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missedRocky Mark probably won't be missed
Default Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation For those who haven't read alot about it

fuck all pandas around the world ..
Rocky Mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios