Newtown have the copyright to the name in Rugby League and therefore own it. They also own it for promotion and merchandise in Australia. Wasn't this already covered in a earlier post?
No shame in being wrong guys but when you can't admit you are wrong that is a low state of affairs.
That would require having a backbone, or some understanding of the law.
Boy we have some legal experts here on this forum don't we. The notion that Newtown may have a case against Ipswich for using a term they have consistently used for decades is absurd in the extreme. One needn't have any knowledge of law to see through the holes in any possible argument.
So no knowledge of trademark law is needed to see one side of an argument, apparently that's not absurd. Well it appears DQ has a better knowledge of the law than most posters, enough to disregard their opinion. Exactly the same reason he gets worked up about when people disregard his. DQ may want to read about the Madrid protocol (related to International trademark law)
According to the trademarks website;
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/Falcon.Result
"A trade mark can be a
word, phrase, letter, number, sound, smell, shape, logo, picture, aspect of packaging or a combination of these. A trade mark can also protect your brand name.
Registration of a business,
company or domain
name does not in itself give you any proprietary rights-only a trade mark can give you that kind of protection."
Both New York Jets & Newtown Jets have the Jest moniker registered here and overseas (via Madrid convention). No shock to see that Ipswich do not have the "Jets" moniker trademark registered in any way shape or form. They do have "IPSWICH JETS RUGBY LEAGUE FOOTBALL CLUB INC" business name registered in QLD. Possible court action, business name V trademark registration, my money would be on the tradmeark registration to come out on top.
Bearing that in mind,
if it did go to court Newtown appear to be in a much stronger position. Therefore may be able to stop Ipswich from using the name "Jets"
if they chose to.
But according to the renowend LU's own bush lawyer the notion put forth above is absurd in the extreme. Again, you needn't have any knowledge of law to see through the holes.
Happy to see any "legal" holes exposed by our own bush lawyer.