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.

11 thoughts on “Renaming the Team

  1. Joltin Joe Orsulak

    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.

    ReplyReply
  2. Jeff B.

    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.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *