Asahi Super Dry 0.0% named as club’s Official Training Kit Partner

[bluenova]

If they have an issue, isn't that between SuperDry & Asahi? Shouldn't Asahi have advised City of the situation & whether we should pull the clothing with branding on, or to continue until the matter was resolved?

I've personal experience of "EasyJet". Several years ago, a client of ours created a company called Easy Car Insurance.

Apparently EasyJet have trademarked "Easy" in a load of categories in the UK, & our client was sent a cease & desist letter which we dealt with on their behalf.

Easy have basically trademarked everything that starts with Easy. They have a hilarious page on their website where they claim their trademark successes are all amazing. I suspect it's to warn others off, as it's clearly part of their business model.

The case appears to be between Superdry and City. I originally posted because someone suggested it was between Asahi and Superdry and just crap journalists mentioned City as a dig. My assumption is that we put it on the tops so we're the ones potentially infringing the clothing trademark.

I'd guess Asahi are fine so long as they stick to beer and don't start making clothes.

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

Didn't someone say we removed the SuperDry apparell from the site in view of the legal action, or has Asahi SuperDry never been on our training kit?

officially the Asahi sponsorship hasn't been on kit sold by city, but you can get it if you look online.

Sadly they actually own the trademark to "Super Dry" and various similar iterations in other languages.

Do they? even with Asahi being around longer than the clothing brand and have called it Superdry beer since their inception?

If they have an issue, isn't that between SuperDry & Asahi? Shouldn't Asahi have advised City of the situation & whether we should pull the clothing with branding on, or to continue until the matter was resolved?

I've personal experience of "EasyJet". Several years ago, a client of ours created a company called Easy Car Insurance.

Apparently EasyJet have trademarked "Easy" in a load of categories in the UK, & our client was sent a cease & desist letter which we dealt with on their behalf.

They will be using the City name for clout, more attention on them rather than go for Asahi (who are much bigger than us)

All the media articles about it are short, and don't discuss the fact Asahi has been around longer. They then immediately jump on about the 115 charges.

 

[Dribble]

Easy have basically trademarked everything that starts with Easy. They have a hilarious page on their website where they claim their trademark successes are all amazing. I suspect it's to warn others off, as it's clearly part of their business model.

The case appears to be between Superdry and City. I originally posted because someone suggested it was between Asahi and Superdry and just crap journalists mentioned City as a dig. My assumption is that we put it on the tops so we're the ones potentially infringing the clothing trademark.

I'd guess Asahi are fine so long as they stick to beer and don't start making clothes.

@Man_City_Loyal

Having experience with sponsorship, the terms of the design is cleared with the sponsor prior to production & marketing.

City won't have just chosen to apply what we like. We'd have acted on instruction according to the terms of the sponsorship, hence why I'm struggling to see why this litigation isn't between SuperDry & Asahi?

I also recall the Manchester clothing brand NASA (Nice And Safe Attitude) having to pull their branding after the space agency threatened to sue.

Could/would NASA have also sent a cease & desist notice to anyone wearing the clothing brand too?

I'm probably wrong, but this is the situation I find City in. We're not a clothing manufacturer, so why not go after who manufactured & printed the clothing & branding?

Thinking about it, how far could SuperDry theoretically drill down into this? Start suing our players for wearing the gear?

There are companies involved above & below City, so why're we being singled out? It doesn't make sense to me. \0/

 

[bluenova]

Do they? even with Asahi being around longer than the clothing brand and have called it Superdry beer since their inception?

You get trademarks for different areas.

Superdry have one for clothing, which includes variations, including Super Dry.

Asahi will have one for drinks.

Sometimes companies will get ones that don't relate to their core business - so Asahi might have decided to get one if they wanted to sell branded clothes - but if it's the case that they've got their own, the issue only arises when Superdry start selling drinks, or in this case Super Dry is used on clothes.

 

[bluenova]

@Man_City_Loyal

Having experience with sponsorship, the terms of the design is cleared with the sponsor prior to production & marketing.

City won't have just chosen to apply what we like. We'd have acted on instruction according to the terms of the sponsorship, hence why I'm struggling to see why this litigation isn't between SuperDry & Asahi?

I also recall the Manchester clothing brand NASA (Nice And Safe Attitude) having to pull their branding after the space agency threatened to sue.

Could/would NASA have also sent a cease & desist notice to anyone wearing the clothing brand too?

I'm probably wrong, but this is the situation I find City in. We're not a clothing manufacturer, so why not go after who manufactured & printed the clothing & branding?

Thinking about it, how far could SuperDry theoretically drill down into this? Start suing our players for wearing the gear?

There are companies involved above & below City, so why're we being singled out? It doesn't make sense to me. \0/

You'd assume that the issue was discussed when the sponsorship was arranged as part of the due diligence, but either it was missed, or decided worth the risk. If they were never on sale with the sponsor logo, maybe that was why (although I have a feeling that this is the usual deal with training kit - I don't remember seeing the other sponsors on the kit that was sold).

For me, City are the obvious target. They're City tops first and foremost - who makes them, and the words on them are decided by City ultimately (i.e. we didn't have to agree sponsorship with Asahi).

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Superdry started licensing their clothes in Asia last year, and it may well be that's the impetus - if their partners flagged it up in advance, and as part of the deal said they expected Superdry to be proactive. All conjecture, but frankly I don't see this as a particular surprising case myself, and don't see it as an attack on City.

Can't see them selling too many clothes in Asia given their whole Japanese themed branding is just a load of made up waffle because the guy who started the company thought it looked "cool".

 

[Northblue]

Sadly they actually own the trademark to "Super Dry" and various similar iterations in other languages.

Including “Super “Dry”” as it was displayed on the kits?

 

[bluenova]

Including “Super “Dry”” as it was displayed on the kits?

Not an expert, but if you want to try selling a drink called Coca "Cola", let's see how far you get ;)

 

[Northblue]

Not an expert, but if you want to try selling a drink called Coca "Cola", let's see how far you get ;)

Haha fair point!

 

[Man_City_Loyal]

You'd assume that the issue was discussed when the sponsorship was arranged as part of the due diligence, but either it was missed, or decided worth the risk. If they were never on sale with the sponsor logo, maybe that was why (although I have a feeling that this is the usual deal with training kit - I don't remember seeing the other sponsors on the kit that was sold).

For me, City are the obvious target. They're City tops first and foremost - who makes them, and the words on them are decided by City ultimately (i.e. we didn't have to agree sponsorship with Asahi).

My moneys on City/Asahi winning