What a joke..WTF are the (Sydney)Superdome caving into.How the hell can a US based company that has no registered rights or trademarks in Australia,succesfully file a lawsuit in a US Federal Court against an Australian based company?

Yes..I know McDonalds,KFC etc etc have trademarks in Australia,but thats because they PAY plenty in Australia to have their rights in Australia protected.

Could you imagine the MCG being succesful if a US stadium called themselves the MCG as well?..They would tell us where to jump....

What a joke...

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 32162.html

Sydney Superdome settles suit
Saturday 15 March 2003, 10:05 AM




Officials with the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans have agreed to settle a trademark lawsuit with a similarly named stadium in Sydney, Australia.

Louisiana Superdome officials filed a lawsuit in US federal court in 2001 against Abigroup Ltd, builder and operator of the Sydney SuperDome, claiming the operator violated the Louisiana venue's trademarked name.

The $240 million, 21,000 seat Sydney stadium was opened in 1999 and was the site of several events during the 2000 Summer Olympics. The Louisiana facility was built in 1975 at a cost of $163 million and is home to the National Football League's New Orleans Saints.

Abigroup will pay the Louisiana Superdome $35,000 for the right to use and advertise the name SuperDome in Australia and the name Sydney SuperDome in the United States.

The settlement was approved by the Superdome Commission, the Louisiana agency that oversees a private company's operation of the Louisiana Superdome.

and from a New Orleans,Lousiana newspaper
Down Under Dome buys right to use name



Friday March 14, 2003
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/index.ssf? ... 326502.xml

By Bruce Eggler
Staff writer

Not that anyone is likely to confuse the two, but officials at the Louisiana Superdome weren't happy when they discovered there is a second Superdome that also presents sports and entertainment events -- in Sydney, Australia.

The $240 million Sydney SuperDome was opened in 1999. Its 21,000-seat arena was the site of several events during the 2000 Summer Olympics, including artistic gymnastics, trampoline and the basketball finals.


Believing that the Down Under dome violated the local facility's trademarked right to exclusive use of the name Superdome, local Dome officials filed a federal lawsuit in 2001 against Abigroup Ltd., builder and operator of the Sydney SuperDome.

The two sides have now agreed to settle the dispute, with Abigroup paying the Louisiana Superdome $35,000 for the right to use and advertise the name SuperDome in Australia and the name Sydney SuperDome in the United States.

Each side recognizes that the other has a valid trademark in its own country and can operate a Web site employing that name. Local Dome officials agreed to drop their lawsuit against the Australian company, with each side paying its own costs and attorneys' fees.

The Superdome Commission, the state agency that oversees a private company's operation of the local Dome, ratified the agreement this week.

I did not know about this. It doesn't sound that bad. After all the article said that the US Dome agreed to drop the lawsuit. For $35,000 and legal fees that's a good price.

The Yanks are stretching it a bit. I also wonder how they were able to take the SSD to court. But if the law was on their side (Americans are really hung up on intellectual property) then the SSD is probably had little else as an option.

Instead of paying $35000 a year to use the name Superdome, what they should do is make a lot more money by selling the naming rights to a well positioned Australian company. Telstra Dome is already taken, but what about ANZ Arena or Holden Centre or Ford Forum or Commonwealth Bank Coliseum or BHP Billiton Bowl. I think Telstra should be left out of naming rights from now on.
Besides, that way the Superdome would have more money to play with eg. to possibly provide even more top of the range facilties to attract more events, particularly of an international nature. Its WIN-WIN in my opinion and there is no danger of lawsuits regarding the name.

The article doesn't say the payment is annual. I got the impression it was one off. But getting naming rights for the place is a good idea and it is the crux of your argument Agree. Good point that.