It's City. Don't assume anything. We appear to have entered into sponsorships with betting companies that don't even exist.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).
They could take them to the Dry Cleaners.I can’t see why Aasha Super Dry shouldn’t take Superdry to the courts, given the chronology
They don't officially sell the training kit with the sponsorship on so they'll be fine :-)I think Super Dry have placed a bet. You can already buy Asahi Super Dry T Shirts. So, why have they gone after City now? Because they are hoping their bet pays off, but it looks a little desperate. Hopefully City did their due diligence beforehand. If City are confident the training kit will remain on sale. We shall see.
Posh v Posh in nickname war | Soccer | The Guardian
<p>Victoria Beckham is opposing Peterborough United's attempt to register their 68-year-old "Posh" nickname as a trademark. </p>amp.theguardian.com
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.