Mike Ashley starts legal battle over Rangers name, trademarks, crests and badges

[gaspard 562]

My understanding was that Rangers have cut out Rangers Retail completely. Not only can RR not produce branded goods, they can't even sell them.

 

That's what I hoped would happen - however a quick visit to the rangers megastore will tell another story

[StuGers 477]

What is the return policy for SD online? For example, if there was a mass order of things online and then returned, would it be costly to the company?

[der Berliner 3,744]

That's what I hoped would happen - however a quick visit to the rangers megastore will tell another story

 

We withdrew the licence long after the deal was in place and the new kits were produced. I would hazard a guess that we are obliged to fulfill our deal with Puma (via SD), else they would probably sue us till kingdom comes. I would assume that they can't produce any more kits though, just selling what is on stock. We'll probably never know ...

[calscot 0]

What is the return policy for SD online? For example, if there was a mass order of things online and then returned, would it be costly to the company?

 

I think that would have to be without any mass organisation of it - which would probably be illegal.

[Darthter 542]

that's interesting Darthter, new one on me must confess.

so you are saying that under the terms of the contract Rangers Retail can sell RFC branded goods but cannot produce RFC branded goods.

 

Can you tell me where you sourced this please I would be interested to research further.

 

no definitive proof....just my understanding (which may be wrong)

I believe anyone can sell official merchandise, but only licensed organisations can produce it. RR were licensed to produce the merchandise until the club withdrew that license. At the time of the Puma order, RR were licensed to issue that order - the result being that several thousand strips were produced in accordance with that order. Puma then argued that they have every right to sell those units (as they WERE produced under license, at the time).

[gaspard 562]

no definitive proof....just my understanding (which may be wrong)

I believe anyone can sell official merchandise, but only licensed organisations can produce it. RR were licensed to produce the merchandise until the club withdrew that license. At the time of the Puma order, RR were licensed to issue that order - the result being that several thousand strips were produced in accordance with that order. Puma then argued that they have every right to sell those units (as they WERE produced under license, at the time).

 

ok, including strips everything currently for sale online and in the shops is stock to go - when its gone its gone and nothing can be manufactured to replace.

that would be ok if the club had leave to release a license to someone other than RR which it doesn't - stalemate.

 

I honestly didn't realise that RR/SD JV had stopped producing merchandise, every days a school day

[Darthter 542]

ok, including strips everything currently for sale online and in the shops is stock to go - when its gone its gone and nothing can be manufactured to replace.

that would be ok if the club had leave to release a license to someone other than RR which it doesn't - stalemate.

 

I honestly didn't realise that RR/SD JV had stopped producing merchandise, every days a school day

 

RR have been unable to produce OFFICIAL merchandise since the club withdrew the license to do so. I am assuming that they are still allowed to sell on any remaining stock.

[boabie 230]

RR have been unable to produce OFFICIAL merchandise since the club withdrew the license to do so. I am assuming that they are still allowed to sell on any remaining stock.

 

Puma and Sports Direct have a contract with Rangers Retail.

Rangers have ended any dealings with Rangers Retail.

Rangers own the copyrights and trademarks.

Rangers say they are raising actions against the others for using the rights and marks.

I would assume Rangers are saying that Rangers Retail was really Ashley is disguise and all deals with RR are not in the interest of Rangers shareholders.

[Darthter 542]

Puma and Sports Direct have a contract with Rangers Retail.

Rangers have ended any dealings with Rangers Retail.

Rangers own the copyrights and trademarks.

Rangers say they are raising actions against the others for using the rights and marks.

I would assume Rangers are saying that Rangers Retail was really Ashley is disguise and all deals with RR are not in the interest of Rangers shareholders.

 

Rangers FC are still a 51% shareholder of Rangers retail, are they not???

It's just that RR don't have any OFFICIAL product to produce.

[forlanssister 3,114]

Yup and if there was a "get out" surely it would have been acted on by now.

The loan repayments that re-secured our IP was for me very positive and at the time I had high hopes it would lead to moves that could in some way either offer an alternative to SD or be the lever to renegotiate with them.

Alas nothing has changed and doesn't seem likely to any time soon.

 

Perhaps, perhaps not, but we should have a better understanding come close of play on December 2.

 

That's despite DK making rash prognostics months ago that a kit resolution was weeks away prompting speculation of deals with alternative kit suppliers.

The whole thing has been handled poorly IMO, though in their defence it's difficult without the full facts to judge too harshly, that said DK should have kept his council regarding kits and more effort should have been made to keep the kit supplier on-side , working with the club rather than creating another commercial partner in dispute.

 

Nest season is the last season of the Puma deal, who knows they may decide its not worth the time and effort.

 

The RR SD JV structure is without doubt one of the major stumbling blocks, what with the A and B shares allocation and I initially though there would have been a legal recourse to nullify the contract based on L&L's conflict of interests - however too much time has passed and looks like this avenue has been deemed non viable.

 

How has too much time passed? The case hasn't even gone to trial yet?

 

Goodness knows how much legal costs we have accumulated to date trying to resolve but there comes a time when we may just have to say there's nothing more we can do.

Good luck to those who advocate demos, boycotts and singing songs about Mike whilst well intentioned I don't think they will make one jot of difference to the retail relationship.

Frustrating I know but he's simply too big, wealthy and diverse in his interests for anyting we do to influence his stance.

 

Hows he doing in his court actions against us so far?

 

Purely from a "devils advocate" position I will ask this though - if the club were to admit that every avenue had been exhausted and we were in fact tied to the contract until it expired, would it not be better to then start buying club merchandise again, ensuring at least some revenue from retail rather than the little or nothing we currently receive due to a combo of bad deal and boycott ?

 

Tin hat on

 

Every avenue hasn't been exhausted though has it?

 

"The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine".