Author Topic: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3  (Read 15311 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NatsGirl

  • Posts: 204
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #100: May 19, 2016, 07:34:28 PM »
Ben Revere...0.096 average and plummeting.   This clod refuses to change his approach, constantly sending meatballs out to the second baseman.... Meanwhile Michael 3K Taylor rots on the bench when he should be playing for the Southern Maryland Blue Crabs..... Scherzer...all this overpaid putz is good for is sitting on the bench like a clown, making the real ace, Gio, laugh... The Nats will soon be chasing the Braves for the worst team in the league... Overpaid clods......

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 31426
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #101: May 19, 2016, 07:35:27 PM »
Oh that bunt :az:

Offline aussienatsfan

  • Posts: 7094
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #102: May 19, 2016, 07:35:33 PM »
yeah that's not a strike, you cannot give some of those outside pitches and then go that far in

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #103: May 19, 2016, 07:36:57 PM »
I guess I get to bump this up...

I had heard of this issue before, but it was more a sentence about "Their logos are really similar." Walgreens is apparently doing a serious advertising push these past few weeks. The first time I saw one of the ads, maybe two weeks ago, I was convinced it was a Nats ad at first - I saw a flash of a curly red W as I was hitting my 30-second skip, did a double take and hit rewind.

So... this has been an issue for a while, clearly. Obed said you can't copyright typeface, etc. That may well be true, but it's not just using a certain font in a logo for a store that has a name that begins with W. It's using that font *and* using that coloration *and* using just the W as a pseudo-symbol. Anybody can use whatever font they want to, sure, but when you use that font and the *exact*!!! same color scheme - white on red - problem. Curly W and red on green, yellow on blue, black on gray - a plethora of combinations. Non-curly W with red/white... well, even that would be potentially confusing. I'd argue it's less the typeface, and more the color scheme plus a standalone W utilized as a symbol.

Of all the color schemes in the world, out of 26 letters in the alphabet, and the rarity of using a curly/cursive style font, I do not see how both parties could continue on if either ever raised an objection in court. I did a fast Google, came up with this page: http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Walgreens

According to that, it looks as though they only evolved to the stand-alone curly red W logo in 2006. Yes, Walgreens used a curly typeface with red text for their branding for decades, but it was, apparently, always as 'Walgreens'. If true, point goes to the Nats, born in '05.

What these recent ads have brought to my attention unlike before is that Walgreens is taking it a step above and beyond - they are now using just a red curly W as their logo. They dropped the 'algreens', having just the solitary curly W prominant on all advertising and signage apart from 'Walgreens'. Their signs, their ads, everywhere, it appears as though they are rebranding themselves to be synonymous with and identified by just a red curly W. That? That's *really* a problem.

I'm no trademark lawyer, although I just might have played one on TV once, but I see a red on white curly W used the way both parties use it as more of an image or extraordinarily distinctive symbol. Again, not versed in this field of law, but I would imagine a critical test judges would use is the likelihood confusion can arise by their appearance and utilization - is it unique enough, distinctive enough, for an average person to see it and immediately associate it with the company/team?

I don't see how the Nats can let this go, at least now that Walgreens is unleashing an advertising blitz in our area that they hadn't done before. It seems to me either Walgreens is expanding their reach into the DC area lately, or their ad agency has recently decided to dramatically emphasize the stand-alone curly red W as their logo/brand. Bottom dollar, I'd heard murmurs of this issue in the past, but never actually saw anything like their recent ads where I literally believed it was something from the Nats. So unless I simply was oblivious to all this and this isn't something new/expanded, it seems like Walgreens decided to push its luck of late.


*Two sentences max*

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19050
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #104: May 19, 2016, 07:38:04 PM »
when I was living in South Africa I dated a mixed-race girl named Yoenisia. She was pure fire in the sack, on a typical Saturday night we would go through a liter of Amarula and break her aunt Clemence's bed frame. Bit crazy though. Once I woke up and she was throwing knives like darts into the headboard right over my head. we didn't last long after that but she sure knew how to use her tongue. Those were the days, eh?

(don't tell Frau about this post)

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 31426
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #105: May 19, 2016, 07:38:21 PM »
I guess I get to bump this up...

I had heard of this issue before, but it was more a sentence about "Their logos are really similar." Walgreens is apparently doing a serious advertising push these past few weeks. The first time I saw one of the ads, maybe two weeks ago, I was convinced it was a Nats ad at first - I saw a flash of a curly red W as I was hitting my 30-second skip, did a double take and hit rewind.

So... this has been an issue for a while, clearly. Obed said you can't copyright typeface, etc. That may well be true, but it's not just using a certain font in a logo for a store that has a name that begins with W. It's using that font *and* using that coloration *and* using just the W as a pseudo-symbol. Anybody can use whatever font they want to, sure, but when you use that font and the *exact*!!! same color scheme - white on red - problem. Curly W and red on green, yellow on blue, black on gray - a plethora of combinations. Non-curly W with red/white... well, even that would be potentially confusing. I'd argue it's less the typeface, and more the color scheme plus a standalone W utilized as a symbol.

Of all the color schemes in the world, out of 26 letters in the alphabet, and the rarity of using a curly/cursive style font, I do not see how both parties could continue on if either ever raised an objection in court. I did a fast Google, came up with this page: http://logos.wikia.com/wiki/Walgreens

According to that, it looks as though they only evolved to the stand-alone curly red W logo in 2006. Yes, Walgreens used a curly typeface with red text for their branding for decades, but it was, apparently, always as 'Walgreens'. If true, point goes to the Nats, born in '05.

What these recent ads have brought to my attention unlike before is that Walgreens is taking it a step above and beyond - they are now using just a red curly W as their logo. They dropped the 'algreens', having just the solitary curly W prominant on all advertising and signage apart from 'Walgreens'. Their signs, their ads, everywhere, it appears as though they are rebranding themselves to be synonymous with and identified by just a red curly W. That? That's *really* a problem.

I'm no trademark lawyer, although I just might have played one on TV once, but I see a red on white curly W used the way both parties use it as more of an image or extraordinarily distinctive symbol. Again, not versed in this field of law, but I would imagine a critical test judges would use is the likelihood confusion can arise by their appearance and utilization - is it unique enough, distinctive enough, for an average person to see it and immediately associate it with the company/team?

I don't see how the Nats can let this go, at least now that Walgreens is unleashing an advertising blitz in our area that they hadn't done before. It seems to me either Walgreens is expanding their reach into the DC area lately, or their ad agency has recently decided to dramatically emphasize the stand-alone curly red W as their logo/brand. Bottom dollar, I'd heard murmurs of this issue in the past, but never actually saw anything like their recent ads where I literally believed it was something from the Nats. So unless I simply was oblivious to all this and this isn't something new/expanded, it seems like Walgreens decided to push its luck of late.

Two sentences, max.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 31426
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #107: May 19, 2016, 07:41:09 PM »
Please stop. I only allow my good friends to impersonate me.

Your obsession with me concerns me greatly. Too bad I don't give a crap.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #108: May 19, 2016, 07:41:59 PM »
In memory:

"LIK E THE CHIEF, IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A FORIST TO SEARCH MESSAGES IN OTHER FORUMS FOR COPYING IT AND PUT IT IN ANOTHER FOUM. IS IT LEGAL? IS THERE ANY AGENCY THAT  ADDRESSES THAAT? IT HAPPENED TO ME WHERE IN A CUBN CHAT FORUM ONE FORIST OF THINGS I HAVE POSTED HERE AND IN OTHER FORUMS."

Offline ajcartwright

  • Posts: 2362
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #109: May 19, 2016, 07:44:04 PM »
so...i was drunk last night trying to add two hotties to my conquest list
when we were approached by a third babe wanting to join us.....
and then unbelievably her mother and aunt wanted in....
let's just say there were five smiling ladies fixing my breakfast this morning

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #110: May 19, 2016, 07:45:03 PM »

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #111: May 19, 2016, 07:45:06 PM »
I'm trying to sell TBSITH so I can go to Lithuania.

Offline RiotAct

  • Posts: 1584
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #112: May 19, 2016, 07:45:15 PM »
Lol nice fake-out by Murphy

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #113: May 19, 2016, 07:45:45 PM »
Nice job Murphy faking out Cespedes.

Now he'll probably get beaned.

Offline mitlen

  • Posts: 66171
  • We had 'em all the way.
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #114: May 19, 2016, 07:46:15 PM »
Nice job Murphy faking out Cespedes.

Now he'll probably get beaned.

Unwritten rules.    :)

Offline houston-nat

  • Posts: 19050
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #115: May 19, 2016, 07:46:30 PM »
so...i was drunk last night trying to add two hotties to my conquest list
when we were approached by a third babe wanting to join us.....
and then unbelievably her mother and aunt wanted in....
let's just say there were five smiling ladies fixing my breakfast this morning
Vega's life has really been transformed

Offline RobDibblesGhost

  • Posts: 31426
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #116: May 19, 2016, 07:46:37 PM »
freak :bang:

Offline NatNasty

  • Posts: 8544
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #117: May 19, 2016, 07:46:48 PM »
Game.

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93631
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #118: May 19, 2016, 07:46:49 PM »
jeez unbelievable bad luck for Strasburg this inning. 3 bullcrap hits.

Offline Smithian

  • Posts: 11497
  • Sunshine Squad 2022
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #119: May 19, 2016, 07:46:49 PM »
Unwritten rules.    :)
If Walker pulled that I'd want him at minimum brushed back.

Offline mmzznnxx

  • Posts: 11912
  • lol Nats
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #120: May 19, 2016, 07:46:56 PM »
Not an ace.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #121: May 19, 2016, 07:47:01 PM »
In memory:

"LIK E THE CHIEF, IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A FORIST TO SEARCH MESSAGES IN OTHER FORUMS FOR COPYING IT AND PUT IT IN ANOTHER FOUM. IS IT LEGAL? IS THERE ANY AGENCY THAT  ADDRESSES THAAT? IT HAPPENED TO ME WHERE IN A CUBN CHAT FORUM ONE FORIST OF THINGS I HAVE POSTED HERE AND IN OTHER FORUMS."

:clap:

mitlen on a roll with a tribute to nospin and an eerie impersonation of Coladar.

Online Slateman

  • Posts: 63095
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #122: May 19, 2016, 07:47:03 PM »
Strasburg choking

Offline sportsfan882

  • Posts: 93631
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #123: May 19, 2016, 07:47:08 PM »
I swear the Nats have the worst luck in baseball. It is freaking ridiculous.

Offline spidernat

  • Posts: 76956
  • The Lerners are Cheap AND Crooked
Re: Nationals @ Mets, Game 3
« Reply #124: May 19, 2016, 07:47:20 PM »
I'm trying to sell TBSITH so I can go to Lithuania.

:spit: