Wrestling Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
~Believe~
Joined
·
2,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
~Believe~
Joined
·
2,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Re: WWF VS WWF Legal Battle Explanation

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.
 

·
Dragon Slayer
Joined
·
6,627 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
872 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
291 Posts
why did the stupid pandas get thier panties in a knot? wwf would give them more traffic and exposure with a large corparation sharing ur name
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top