|
Post by Error on Mar 24, 2019 0:42:56 GMT -5
I could see letting something like Greed, Sin, or King of the Road lapse but ones like the Buckhouse Stampede, Bash at the Beach, or BattleBowl seem a little too important to let go. I mean Bash at the Beach was a major show for WCW and BatB 96 was probably the most important night in WCW history.
|
|
mattyy
Unicron
holy moly its the big homie
Posts: 3,138
|
Post by mattyy on Mar 24, 2019 1:12:54 GMT -5
And you’d be right and logical if this wasn’t big business we were talking about and there wasn’t a tonne of watchful eyes that have big stakes in companies ready to go to meetings and such and have the ability to say “Why didn’t we do that and get that money?” and question why they have shares at all. And at this point, with the amount of hoarding of talent WWE does, something that costs way more than holding a trademark, they can afford to keep their own trademarks. A big business that spends almost as much as it makes. If I'm a shareholder I'm asking why we're paying millions for trademarks we'll never use when profits are down. Talent they can use or choose not to is worth more than names of PPVs from a long-dead company. How about trademark show names instead of things like "Lady Balls", or indie names like "Drew Gulak" and "Tony Nese"?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Mar 24, 2019 1:32:01 GMT -5
A big business that spends almost as much as it makes. If I'm a shareholder I'm asking why we're paying millions for trademarks we'll never use when profits are down. Talent they can use or choose not to is worth more than names of PPVs from a long-dead company. How about trademark show names instead of things like "Lady Balls", or indie names like "Drew Gulak" and "Tony Nese"? The trademark for "Lady Balls" has also lapsed. Expired last December. Gulak and Nese are under contract, so why wouldn't they file a trademark? I don't get what the problem is. WWE don't see any monetary value in the trademarks Cody is filing for, and why would they? Some of them haven't been used in 25 years and any value they have with today's market is purely nostalgia.
|
|
mattyy
Unicron
holy moly its the big homie
Posts: 3,138
|
Post by mattyy on Mar 24, 2019 5:33:38 GMT -5
How about trademark show names instead of things like "Lady Balls", or indie names like "Drew Gulak" and "Tony Nese"? The trademark for "Lady Balls" has also lapsed. Expired last December. Gulak and Nese are under contract, so why wouldn't they file a trademark? I don't get what the problem is. WWE don't see any monetary value in the trademarks Cody is filing for, and why would they? Some of them haven't been used in 25 years and any value they have with today's market is purely nostalgia. Why trademark "Lady Balls" in the first place? Also it's not like WWE owns their own network and can run specials literally whenever they want or anything. It's not like they can air a houseshow from California or Florida called "Bash at the Beach", or a show on Halloween called "Halloween Havoc" or have an NXT Battlebowl. Wrestling thrives on nostalgia.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Mar 24, 2019 13:45:28 GMT -5
The trademark for "Lady Balls" has also lapsed. Expired last December. Gulak and Nese are under contract, so why wouldn't they file a trademark? I don't get what the problem is. WWE don't see any monetary value in the trademarks Cody is filing for, and why would they? Some of them haven't been used in 25 years and any value they have with today's market is purely nostalgia. Why trademark "Lady Balls" in the first place? Also it's not like WWE owns their own network and can run specials literally whenever they want or anything. It's not like they can air a houseshow from California or Florida called "Bash at the Beach", or a show on Halloween called "Halloween Havoc" or have an NXT Battlebowl. Wrestling thrives on nostalgia. "Lady Balls" was the working title of Stephanie McMahon's autobiography.
|
|