I'm seeing a lot of anti-Michael Vick products [not just on CP, but other PODs as well] and I'm wondering about their legality. I've long had anti-Vick designs but haven't explicitly used his WHOLE name, nor have I used an NFL name in whole or in part [such as "Eagles" or "Philadelphia Eagles"].

If you do a quick MP search for "eagles vick" you'll see that some people are definitely using terms that *I* thought were CUP violations. Yes, yes, I know!, just because others are doing it doesn't mean it's legal...they're doing it until they're caught...etc.

Can anyone DEFINITIVELY clarify if the following are acceptable on products?:

. Michael Vick
. Philadelphia
. Eagles
. Philadelphia Eagles
. variations such as "Philly" or "Philly Eagles"

**I am not a lawyer rendering a legal opinion **

No one can definitively answer your question.. at best CUP at CP can tell you what they believe is acceptable (subject to change if they receive a complaint).

But it is my understanding that:
* Michael owns rights to his name and image;
* The Philadelphia Eagles owners have most certainly trademarked the team name, any logo(s) used, and quite possibly variations thereof;
* The city of Philadelphia might have trademarked the name, but might only be able to register it as city & state;
* Eagles by itself is probably ok as it is used for everything from a band to multiple sports teams; but using it in combination with other terms or illustrations or tags might well get you in trouble;

Again, even though something might not be illegal, that doesn't mean that some over-cautious type won't make a stink.

The law is a twisty road. First, regardless of CP business practice it has never been the case that *just* the mere use of a trademark is against the law. It isn't nor has it ever been. Trademark gets violated only by use in context. However, often whether that context is or is not within the law is the argument and so one gets sued anyway. Being right doesn't get the legal bills paid.

Commentary is one of our most important Constitutional protections and it is recognized as a legitimate exception to some forms of trademark use. The legal question ends up being whether the use was legitimate commentary. See http://blog.ericgoldman.org/ar...3/griper_selling.htm (which, keep in mind, is an opinion piece not a description of the law but still raises the right issues) also http://www.citizen.org/litigat...rticles.cfm?ID=14270

There is a gulf of difference between a CUP violation and something that is a loser in court. The role of CUP is to not waste money on legal fees, which includes just responding to claims. So the income level needs to justify the risks. If it doesn't it is toast even if it is possibly legal.