“Read this and let me know if they can really do it,” my assistant said as she handed me the front page of the local paper.  The headline: “MLB says kids teams can’t adopt nicknames.”

We’re in the middle of the World Series between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Tampa Bay Rays and the headline makes it sound like the Grinch Stole Christmas.  Kids can’t emulate their heros?  It doesn’t sound fair.

Actually, the headline is a bit misleading.  It says teams can’t adopt nicknames.  When you read the article you realize its really about trademarked names, not nicknames per se.

Part of every professional sports team’s franchise, or marketing platform, is it’s team name and logo.  Those assets are closely guarded and usually trademarked for added legal protection.

Using someone else’s name without their permission is really a form of identity theft.  It causes confusion and misleads others and that’s where the trademark infringement comes in.

Oh, ‘common you might say.  When Al’s Garage sponsors the local youth baseball team and their team jerseys say “Al’s Yankees” everyone knows it’s not the real NY Yankees.  And besides, how can they own the word “Yankees”? 

True.  They know it’s not the world famous NY Yankees — but seeing the word “Yankees” in the context of a baseball uniform makes people think of the NY Yankees and there’s the rub.  It’s very different than, for example, seeing a Yankees Cheese Shop sign.  It’s a different product and, in legal terms, a different class of goods.  When it comes to baseball, the NY Yankees can own that Yankee space.

Most ethical people would not dream of driving someone else’s car or moving into someone else’s home without permission.  Yet when property is not three dimensional, when you can’t pick it up and hold it, when it’s intellectual property like copyright, trademark, and patents; more people are inclined to rationalize use without permission.

Rather than banning use of Major League Baseball team names on pint size jerseys, the MLB might consider offering a limited license for a very nominal license fee — an amount that could be raised in a bake sale.  In the process they would be teaching the kids that stealing a name is not the same as stealing a base. 

They would also hit a home run for legal literacy by reminding players, coaches, and sponsors that the law, like baseball, has rules that need to be followed if you want to stay in the game.

Centuries ago, when unscrupulous competitors tried to pass off their wares for the real deal merchant guilds began to affix “marks” to their goods to avoid confusion among customers and to prevent fraud.   These “trademarks,” as they became known, let customers easily identify names they could trust and the  origin of the goods they wanted to buy.    

Today, the Internet has added a vast new dimension to merchant trade and the unscrupulous have again found ways to divert attention from the real deal.  As you probably know, the virtual world is a combination of things you see on your screen and things you don’t.  Included in the netherworld of HTML code are things called “meta tags,” words and phrases that search engines can read and use to identify relevant websites and rank web pages. 

There has long been debate about whether a competitor’s trademark, when used as a meta tag or is elsewhere hidden on a web page like a subliminal Internet message, constitutes a willful infringement of that competitor’s trademark.  A recent First Circuit Court of Appeals decision now says it does (Venture Tape Corp. v. Mcgills Glass Warehouse). 

It’s something you might want to let your webmaster and webdesigner know because “willful” infringement raises the ante considerably.  The penalty for violation ranges up to $1 million per violation.

Smart business owners and managers know that trademarks are powerful tools for protecting their brand platform.  The smartest ones will use them wisely and fairly.  Don’t let a hidden meta tag turn into a huge hidden liability for your company.