exitmusic Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 On 5/7/2019 at 10:53 PM, BRASSO said: So no, you could not start a Drum Corps in Idaho or wherever and call them the " 27th Lancers ", if the owners of that name has officially registered that name, and do not want you to utilize it. I'm tempted to do it just to prove you wrong. That seems petty, but worth the $100 filing fee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Lancer Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 11 minutes ago, exitmusic said: I'm tempted to do it just to prove you wrong. That seems petty, but worth the $100 filing fee. Yeah, seems petty. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRASSO Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, exitmusic said: I'm tempted to do it just to prove you wrong. That seems petty, but worth the $100 filing fee. Well, if you remain unconvinced by the facts above that the " 27th Lancers " successfully got a court order to remove a Corps from using the name " 27th Lancers " without their permission, go out, file the fee, then start your Corps and name them the " 27th Lancers" as well, and see what happens. Good luck and a toast to you, my friend with your " 27th Lancers ". Edited May 10, 2019 by BRASSO 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurassic Lancer Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, BRASSO said: Well, if you remain unconvinced by the facts above that the " 27th Lancers " successfully got a court order to remove a Corps from using the name " 27th Lancers " without their permission, go out, file the fee, then start your Corps and name them the " 27th Lancers" as well, and see what happens. Good luck and a toast to you, my friend with your " 27th Lancers ". I’m sure no one would would take exception with that ...😂 Edited May 10, 2019 by Jurassic Lancer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weaklefthand4ever Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) I guess my question would be, why would anyone want to "resurrect" a corps name? Even if it could be done, nobody is going to think that the new "Star of Indiana" is the same Star from '93. I don't see the gain from doing it really, but I may be short sighted. On the subject of the 27th, though I would LOVE to see them back again ( one of fathers favorite corps,) it just wouldn't be the 27th for me. For good or bad, we live in our own memories with some things and to see Star, 27th, Sky, Glassman or VK would somehow just not satisfy me the way I would want it to. Edited May 10, 2019 by Weaklefthand4ever Beecause I kan't spell gud 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 4 hours ago, Weaklefthand4ever said: I guess my question would be, why would anyone want to "resurrect" a corps name? Even if it could be done, nobody is going to think that the new "Star of Indiana" is the same Star from '93. I don't see the gain from doing it really, but I may be short sighted. On the subject of the 27th, though I would LOVE to see them back again ( one of fathers favorite corps,) it just wouldn't be the 27th for me. For good or bad, we live in our own memories with some things and to see Star, 27th, Sky, Glassman or VK would somehow just not satisfy me the way I would want it to. The original actual real Cleveland Browns 1944-1995 became the Baltimore Colts. The owner took everything except the tradename and trademark to Baltimore. The current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team created in 1999 and are not the original team but are the Browns in name only. Check out the history and you will find out why a name is that important even if transfered to an entirely new entity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 4 hours ago, Weaklefthand4ever said: I guess my question would be, why would anyone want to "resurrect" a corps name? Even if it could be done, nobody is going to think that the new "Star of Indiana" is the same Star from '93. I don't see the gain from doing it really, but I may be short sighted. On the subject of the 27th, though I would LOVE to see them back again ( one of fathers favorite corps,) it just wouldn't be the 27th for me. For good or bad, we live in our own memories with some things and to see Star, 27th, Sky, Glassman or VK would somehow just not satisfy me the way I would want it to. if I win Powerball I am bringing the Westshoremen back. And I have no intentions of it being like the previous versions, because i'll be sure to have a team around me to make it sure it's financially solvent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Ream Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Stu said: The original actual real Cleveland Browns 1944-1995 became the Baltimore Colts. The owner took everything except the tradename and trademark to Baltimore. The current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team created in 1999 and are not the original team but are the Browns in name only. Check out the history and you will find out why a name is that important even if transfered to an entirely new entity. Ravens. The Colts took the name with them to Indy, hence the horseshoe on the field Edited May 10, 2019 by Jeff Ream Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terri Schehr Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 50 minutes ago, Jeff Ream said: Ravens. The Colts took the name with them to Indy, hence the horseshoe on the field Jim was raised a Browns fan. When they moved to Baltimore, he became a Ravens fan. He calls the Cleveland team the fake Browns. 😂 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weaklefthand4ever Posted May 10, 2019 Share Posted May 10, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Stu said: The original actual real Cleveland Browns 1944-1995 became the Baltimore Colts. The owner took everything except the tradename and trademark to Baltimore. The current Cleveland Browns are an expansion team created in 1999 and are not the original team but are the Browns in name only. Check out the history and you will find out why a name is that important even if transfered to an entirely new entity Point well taken Stu. There's no doubt that names are powerful. Trust me when I say I understand full well the impact of "brand recognition." In my alternate life remember that I work in what I consider to be a "cottage industry." Pool players, at least the good ones, are VERY particular about their equipment and when you're charging someone $1500 or more for a cue and telling them it will take a year, you'd sure as #### have some brand recognition. But if someone copies your name and product, design etc., it tends to go very poorly. There's only one George Balabushka. Now, that being said, maybe corps are different. If Star came back for instance, I would absolutely see them. Would they be the same Star? Not to me. That doesn't mean though that I would be against their success. I'm not that old and grumpy to put anything new on auto-hate. If I won the lotto, I would make a few fat contributions to both Spirit and Atlanta CV. But IMHO, some things....like Star are best left to the legend we have in our memories. Edited May 11, 2019 by Weaklefthand4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.