It was good to see Proprintwear and Phil as a vendor at the North Atlantic Junior Section Championships this weekend. Proprintwear has a much better selection of products than what I saw at the Chicago NAC this year from the vendor selling USFA merchandise. In addition, there is no comparison in the quality of products.
I had an opportunity to talk to Phil and he told me that another vendor threatened him with a lawsuit demanding $20,000. in damages. They had a lawyer send Proprintwear a letter telling them to stop selling the USFA International design as they owned the design and had complete rights to it.
He said he had to hire an attorney to represent his company. I know Phil has given a lot of money to the USFA for the rights of these logos.
Phil has done a lot for the USFA. I remember when he came up with the idea of the Official Awards Area and even went out and purchased the awards stand out of his pocket.
At the 2006 Summer Nationals he said a bank was giving away t-shirts with the USFA Logo and that it violated his contract. He said another vendor was caught selling tournament t-shirts more than once. He said he asked Massik to stop it, but he let it go on anyways in violation of his contract.
I know the USFA stopped him from attending NAC events even though he had a USFA Corporate Membership saying he applied late or there was no room.
He also told me that he tried working with the USFA to straighten out the logo issues, but they gave him the run around, so he put the money in to an escrow account
I would like to find out how much money the USFA has received from Phil over the years. I'm sure the amount the USFA is losing from all of this is pretty high.
I'm not a attorney so I won't give a legal opinion. That is for the court to decide. However, I do feel the USFA is wrong as Phil and Proprintwear has done so much for the USFA.
Contract law is fun, has anyone found a document stating that the USFA sent certified notice that agreement was null after 30 days?
Contract cases can be pure entertainment, the last trial I observed for Civil and Tort law the Judge did as follows:
Judge: Sir, did you enter into a written agreement with the plaintiff?
Defendant: Yes
Judge: and you sir (Plaintiff) did you sign that agreement?
Plaintiff: Yes.
Judge: Defendant why didn't you pay the Plaintiff as is outlined in this beautifully worded contract I've so generously read over in preparing for this case, because I don't think you have.
Defendant: You honor?
Judge: Why haven't you paid the Plaintiff, let's start there.
Defendant: I don't think I should have to.
Judge: Well this document and this court says you do, I rule in favor of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff:
Defendant:
Judge:
At the 2006 Summer Nationals he said a bank was giving away t-shirts with the USFA Logo and that it violated his contract. He said another vendor was caught selling tournament t-shirts more than once. He said he asked Massik to stop it, but he let it go on anyways in violation of his contract.
This looks like one of those all-too-common cases of ignorance. The USFA was wrong not to stop the violators. Purchasing exclusive rights to the logo is a waste of money unless it is truly exclusive.
However, I think the suit goes a bit too far in questioning the USFA's right to use the logo on pool sheets and the magazine, unless Proprintwear also has paper-printing capabilities as well. I don't think their lawyer thought out the contract very well.
This looks like one of those all-too-common cases of ignorance. The USFA was wrong not to stop the violators. Purchasing exclusive rights to the logo is a waste of money unless it is truly exclusive.
However, I think the suit goes a bit too far in questioning the USFA's right to use the logo on pool sheets and the magazine, unless Proprintwear also has paper-printing capabilities as well. I don't think their lawyer thought out the contract very well.
There's minor confusion here, without looking at the agreement it's hard to tell whether or not its an issue, did they become the exclusive licensee, did they become the managing agent of the license, there's several possibilities. Who designed the logo in question Paul or someone in the USFA art department or the previous branding agent.
If we assume Paul is the exclusive licensee, he due some damages. Half the lawsuit is based on whether or not the USFA after entering into this agreement then turned to another entity and agreed to license them use of the logo, or did that bank "bootleg" it, in the first issue that's the USFAs misstep, the second is an error on both Paul and the USFA not to control their license. If Paul or the USFA were to make that document public, we'd all have better understanding of the issue.
Now does anyone wonder why we haven't seen Big for Our Britches at any NACs in awhile?
I heard that the USFA prohibits vendors from selling apparel any more, other than the official merchandise company -- which would explain why big for your britches is out now. I think all that can be sold by others are fencing uniforms, no t-shirts or stuff like that.
I heard that the USFA prohibits vendors from selling apparel any more, other than the official merchandise company -- which would explain why big for your britches is out now. I think all that can be sold by others are fencing uniforms, no t-shirts or stuff like that.
Awwww! B4OB has the best designs around! This is really a loss to the fencers. Imagine if the USFA only approved one official equipment vendor for every tournament! I suppose this must have been in PPW's contract, too.
Apparently the lady from B4YB said they're letting her stay on through nationals, but after that no more. Not sure about others, or specifically why. But for her, that's it because that's all she sells.
I have to say no matter what the disputes, etc., I liked the PPW stuff better than the current vendor. The vendor now doesn't seem to get it when it comes to designs of fencing clothing. It instead looks more like what you'd find at a nascar event, with the overcrowded designs and ridiculous sayings that always seem to miss the mark. And I am not especially impressed with the quality, either.
Whether you liked Phil or not, or whatever happened between him and the USFA, his products definitely fit our sport. The USFA should just offer to buy all of his inventory (I know -- with what money?) and then sell it themselves until they can resolve the issue or find a non-cheesy vendor with equally good stuff.
Whether you liked Phil or not, or whatever happened between him and the USFA, his products definitely fit our sport. The USFA should just offer to buy all of his inventory (I know -- with what money?) and then sell it themselves until they can resolve the issue or find a non-cheesy vendor with equally good stuff.
He just couldn't stencil a jacket to save his life or answer phone calls or respond to emails...
__________________ "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand."
- Homer Simpson
I heard that the USFA prohibits vendors from selling apparel any more, other than the official merchandise company -- which would explain why big for your britches is out now. I think all that can be sold by others are fencing uniforms, no t-shirts or stuff like that.
I don't see why not. They don't print the USFA logo on their gear, and it's a free country. Unfortunately, with the reduced exposure it might not make business sense to keep going online.
I don't see why not. They don't print the USFA logo on their gear, and it's a free country. Unfortunately, with the reduced exposure it might not make business sense to keep going online.
They'll still have a bit of left over, it'd make a nice sale...
__________________ ↕ Embrace both lines.
__________________
Apparently the lady from B4YB said they're letting her stay on through nationals, but after that no more. Not sure about others, or specifically why. But for her, that's it because that's all she sells.
I've never bought a t-shirt from B4YB at all. That said, I hope the kickbacks from the other vendor are REALLY good, because if not, that's just plain idiotic.
The way I see it, it's in the best interest of the fencing community to have a variety of designs and options available from various vendors. It's healthy competition. I understand if non-official vendors can't sell stuff with the USFA logo, but, come on, I think it's only reasonable that other clothing shouldn't be under a gag order -- even if it's fencing-related.
I've been to national events for other sports, and there are plenty of vendors with all kinds of things related to their sport. We need to support giving fencers lots of choices. This isn't China and capitalism shouldn't be suppressed.
I heard that the USFA prohibits vendors from selling apparel any more, other than the official merchandise company -- which would explain why big for your britches is out now. I think all that can be sold by others are fencing uniforms, no t-shirts or stuff like that.
What an absolutely STUPID idea. We really do have morons running this show don't we.
__________________
If you give a man a fire, he is warm for the night.
If you set a man on fire, he is warm for the rest of his life.
I've been trying to find some fencing merchandise online. Does anyone know where to look? I looked at the new company (Team IP) and couldn't find any fencing stuff on their site. I thought they've been around for a year or so. What's going on?
Linear Mode
