Clowney/Agent to sue?

[cockybreeyan]

Ah, the good ole American attitude - "sue 'em"

[yazoo]

For the people complaining about our sue happy culture, this is not an case you can use as an example of lawsuit abuse.

1. No lawsuit was filed.
2. Clowney's agent did his job, contacted the owner, and asked him to take down the sign. The owner apparently gave him some crap because the agent had to tell him if he did not remove it, Clowney would seek an injunction (i.e., no claim for money damages) to have it removed.
3. The owner agreed to voluntarily remove it on Monday.
4. The owner called the media and made it into a media event, probably to generate free publicity, and spin it to make Clowney look petty.

The wrong here was by the owner. But the good news is that the wrong was rememedied without a lawsuit.

[U-Dub Gamecock]

Originally Posted by yazoo

For the people complaining about our sue happy culture, this is not an case you can use as an example of lawsuit abuse.

1. No lawsuit was filed.
2. Clowney's agent did his job, contacted the owner, and asked him to take down the sign. The owner apparently gave him some crap because the agent had to tell him if he did not remove it, Clowney would seek an injunction (i.e., no claim for money damages) to have it removed.
3. The owner agreed to voluntarily remove it on Monday.
4. The owner called the media and made it into a media event, probably to generate free publicity, and spin it to make Clowney look petty.

The wrong here was by the owner. But the good news is that the wrong was rememedied without a lawsuit.

Sounds like the Sub Shop owner is trying to get some free advertisement of his business by going to the media over this. Sorry, A.N., but this guy won't ever see a dime of my money....I umpire a bunch in Rock Hill, I'll go somewhere else to eat.

[53fan]

Originally Posted by Acockolypse Now

I know the owner.

He's not a "tater", he's a good guy that always has a funny saying on his sign. Nothing more nothing less.

No big deal.

I agree. He picks at everybody to generate business. It's a tiny, local sub shop. He's a good guy. Everybody in RH looks forward to seeing what goes up next.

[uga dawg]

if subway had tv ads and in store promos, then yeah, get nasty because it would be seen nationally. However, the only people who would see the sign in question would be rock hill residents. Why not take it for what it is and leave it be if it helps a guy sell subs in your home town?

[MillerTime43]

In reality, there is nothing illegal about it. Someone's name is not intellectual property. This is very common. See the Ben "Roethlisberger" sandwhich in Pittsburgh. Also, there is an Irish bar just outside of the Panthers stadium, which every item on their menu is actually named after players.

In reading the story, he doesn't even have a sandwich named after Clowney. He also explains that this happened 14 years ago with Mel Gibson. Gibson's agent NEVER threatened to sue, because there is nothing illegal about it. Instead, asked him to change the wording to shed a better light on Gibson, which the sub owner did.

Also reading this article, it looks like he will change the message but NOT take Clowney's name down. The only think Cook could do is file an injunction, which may or may not get granted. The sub owner could then file to momentarily get the injunction lifted, which he would. Then it would come down to is Cook interested in fighting that battle which he probably would ultimately lose since the sub owner has a LONG history of doing this, with very little issues. He has used Jake Delhomme's name poking fun at him. He has used Stephon Gilmore's name and this is not the first that JD's name has been used. He has also used the Carolina Panthers name in poking fun.
http://www.wrhi.com/2014/01/agent-fo...-marquee-89504

http://www.wrhi.com/2014/01/palmetto...-ruffalo-89535

[B-G]

Who the hell wants to go to Rock Hill anyway.

[Cock Kool-Aid]

Originally Posted by U-Dub Gamecock

Sounds like the Sub Shop owner is trying to get some free advertisement of his business by going to the media over this. Sorry, A.N., but this guy won't ever see a dime of my money....I umpire a bunch in Rock Hill, I'll go somewhere else to eat.

lol really? Man, this is serious stuff.

[yazoo]

Originally Posted by MillerTime43

In reality, there is nothing illegal about it. Someone's name is not intellectual property. This is very common. See the Ben "Roethlisberger" sandwhich in Pittsburgh. Also, there is an Irish bar just outside of the Panthers stadium, which every item on their menu is actually named after players.

In reading the story, he doesn't even have a sandwich named after Clowney. He also explains that this happened 14 years ago with Mel Gibson. Gibson's agent NEVER threatened to sue, because there is nothing illegal about it. Instead, asked him to change the wording to shed a better light on Gibson, which the sub owner did.

Also reading this article, it looks like he will change the message but NOT take Clowney's name down. The only think Cook could do is file an injunction, which may or may not get granted. The sub owner could then file to momentarily get the injunction lifted, which he would. Then it would come down to is Cook interested in fighting that battle which he probably would ultimately lose since the sub owner has a LONG history of doing this, with very little issues. He has used Jake Delhomme's name poking fun at him. He has used Stephon Gilmore's name and this is not the first that JD's name has been used. He has also used the Carolina Panthers name in poking fun.
http://www.wrhi.com/2014/01/agent-fo...-marquee-89504

http://www.wrhi.com/2014/01/palmetto...-ruffalo-89535

South Carolina recognizes as a tort the wrongful appropriation of personality. The law is murky. However, I don't think you can say definitively this action was not illegal, particularly when the obvious goal of the owner's message is exploiting Clowney's name, in his home town, for a commercial basis.

He did the right thing by agreeing to change the message on his sign.

Originally Posted by uga dawg

if subway had tv ads and in store promos, then yeah, get nasty because it would be seen nationally. However, the only people who would see the sign in question would be rock hill residents. Why not take it for what it is and leave it be if it helps a guy sell subs in your home town?

I agree. I bet if the guy would offer Clowney a reasonable fee for using his name, JD would be really happy to agree with some non-demeaning use of his name.

[JohnnyMc]

Who wants to go to Rock Hill?..about every recruiter in the South.I also know know the owner of Subway and a nicer guy I have never met.

[markp_vip]

I remember when people used to feel honored if someone named a sandwich after them. Now it seems like everybody who is famous has to be paid for every little thing that is remotely associated with them. I understand that it's 99.99% greedy agents worried about getting their cut, but I think it's pretty ridiculous. I can see an issue if someone makes a false claim like this is the officlal sub of "Insert Athlete's Name Here" or endorsed by, but just naming a sub after somebody. Give me an effing break. Is anybody going to even order a sub just because it's named after Clowney anyway? Personally I'm going to eat a sub based on what it tastes like.

[JohnnyMc]

Sorry,I meant to type Sub Station 2,he is not affiliated with Subway.

[Acockolypse Now]

To be clear, he didn't actually name a sandwich after him, he just made a joke on a sign.

There are more important areas at which to direct your outrage.

B-G please stay wherever the hell you are. I'm sure it's paradise.

[MisterClowney]

If the agent was to let that slide, where does it end? Should most definitely sue. Have to send a message that this won't be tolerated.

[Nureye]

I thought these Fox News styled headlines were against board policy.

[markp_vip]

Originally Posted by MisterClowney

If the agent was to let that slide, where does it end? Should most definitely sue. Have to send a message that this won't be tolerated.

So should athletes now start suing newspapers for using their names in articles. As far as I know they don't pay athletes to use their names and they are clearly trying to profit from the use of them.

[ShutTheSuccop]

Originally Posted by Nureye

I thought these Fox News styled headlines were against board policy.

Kind of like politics out of the PF as well?

[Master Bedroom]

The Apocalypse will not be the end of the world. It will be the day when Jesus returns to earth and sues all of the dry cleaners that use his likeness for catchy slogans on their signs. This is just the beginning..

[yazoo]

Originally Posted by markp_vip

I remember when people used to feel honored if someone named a sandwich after them. Now it seems like everybody who is famous has to be paid for every little thing that is remotely associated with them. I understand that it's 99.99% greedy agents worried about getting their cut, but I think it's pretty ridiculous. I can see an issue if someone makes a false claim like this is the officlal sub of "Insert Athlete's Name Here" or endorsed by, but just naming a sub after somebody. Give me an effing break. Is anybody going to even order a sub just because it's named after Clowney anyway? Personally I'm going to eat a sub based on what it tastes like.

Yeah, musicians should be honored when I download their music for free from napster. I am listenting to their tunes! Greedy musicians want to get paid for their music. I paid for the CD. I see nothing wrong with copying it, giving it to all my friends for free, and posting a link on the Net so everyone who has it can download it.

[markp_vip]

Originally Posted by yazoo

Yeah, musicians should be honored when I download their music for free from napster. I am listenting to their tunes! Greedy musicians want to get paid for their music. I paid for the CD. I see nothing wrong with copying it, giving it to all my friends for free, and posting a link on the Net so everyone who has it can download it.

That's totally different than this situation though. If we were talking about using an athlete's likeness on merchandise or something like that then ok, but this is different. Stealing music is causing a direct loss of income from the artist, how is putting an athlete's name on a sandwich board causing any kind of financial harm to the athlete?