No you haven't made your point. Running and golf are related as sports (individual sports at that) and therefore the same name is much more likely to lead to confusion among the relevant consumers (sports fans, purchasers of t-shirts, etc.) than any of these other things you've listed. That's trademark law 101.
There’s probably more potential confusion between the TM flooring, cabinets, building products, and home renovations. Or the TM Cafe and catering. And certainly TM cosmetics and TM Polish (custom nail polish).
The thing with trademarks is that you can’t claim universal use of a word mark, otherwise there would be nothing in the English language left to use. When you register a trademark, you do so in specific categories that apply to your business, and they are very specific. I haven’t yet search for how ‘Taylor Made’ the golf company has protected their name but I highly doubt you’ll find ‘running club’ as one of them. Likewise, most other users of ‘Taylor Made’ are highly unlikely to have sought protection for the name hence some of the crossover.
All of the most successful athletes she coached were recruited by the previous coach. Her results are significantly worse with people she recruited. This is especially bad when you consider all BYU women athletes get 6k per year of NIL money. How is she recruiting worse??
The previous coach won 4 NCAA titles. She inherited as good of a situation as Mike Smith.
The last of those four titles was in 2002. The program had gone downhill since then.
Those top athletes who were freshmen her first year were all LDS members from Utah who would go to BYU in any case. She still recruits the top LDS members from Utah. Her freshmen this year include Utah's XC champ and Utah's best miler. And she has expanded BYU's recruiting to include top runners from out of state. Her recruiting is twice as good as the previous coach.
all true, but they missed on Carlee Hansen for some reason. Non LDS? She is doing well at UNC.
There’s probably more potential confusion between the TM flooring, cabinets, building products, and home renovations. Or the TM Cafe and catering. And certainly TM cosmetics and TM Polish (custom nail polish).
The thing with trademarks is that you can’t claim universal use of a word mark, otherwise there would be nothing in the English language left to use. When you register a trademark, you do so in specific categories that apply to your business, and they are very specific. I haven’t yet search for how ‘Taylor Made’ the golf company has protected their name but I highly doubt you’ll find ‘running club’ as one of them. Likewise, most other users of ‘Taylor Made’ are highly unlikely to have sought protection for the name hence some of the crossover.
True, but a couple of caveats. A trademark can be essentially universal when the word is made up, e.g. Exxon, Xerox, Rolex. "TaylorMade" doesn't rise to that level of course, but I'd be surprised if their registration categories were limited to golf clubs and golf balls. I haven't searched either, but they probably included things like shirts, hats, luggage, etc. which is where the overlap and thus likelihood of confusion could occur.
If the golf company sued over this, the only winners would be the lawyers. The court would likely say there is a minimal likelihood of confusion based on the different markets, Taylor's intent in using her name as the basis, and because golfers and runners have a pretty high standard of care (nobody is going to be buying a half marathon plan in an attempt to break 90 on 18 holes).
That said, still a bad name.
Notice the IG handle is "taylormade_elite"; that underscore is there because "taylormadeelite" is a basketball training group. That is also what pops up when you google. Some golf stuff pops up to. Basically, the name is an uphill battle on the Internet. If you can't get the twitter/IG/facebook handle, find a new name.
Taylor Made Express-delivery service,local pickups,air charters,warehousing.
Taylor Made Floors-sells flooring
Taylor Made Home Solutions - building products
Taylor Made Polish-custom nail polish
Taylor Made Cabinets-sells cabinets
Taylor Made Cafe- an actual cafe
TaylorMade Cases- cases for electronic devices.
Taylor Made Plans-home renovations
Taylor Made Photography- photography studio
Taylor Made Catering-Kansas City Catering
Do you want me keep going or have I made my point???????
Can you point to the one that markets itself as a national group in sports? A key component of the trademark infringement analysis is likelihood of brand confusion. Several posters have already noted they thought this was a post about women golfers initially. Not one of the firms you pointed to on the list could be confused with a national SPORTS equipment manufacturer.
The thing with trademarks is that you can’t claim universal use of a word mark, otherwise there would be nothing in the English language left to use. When you register a trademark, you do so in specific categories that apply to your business, and they are very specific. I haven’t yet search for how ‘Taylor Made’ the golf company has protected their name but I highly doubt you’ll find ‘running club’ as one of them. Likewise, most other users of ‘Taylor Made’ are highly unlikely to have sought protection for the name hence some of the crossover.
True, but a couple of caveats. A trademark can be essentially universal when the word is made up, e.g. Exxon, Xerox, Rolex. "TaylorMade" doesn't rise to that level of course, but I'd be surprised if their registration categories were limited to golf clubs and golf balls. I haven't searched either, but they probably included things like shirts, hats, luggage, etc. which is where the overlap and thus likelihood of confusion could occur.
You make a good point about made-up words. I sort of alluded to that by referencing the English language but I could have stated it better, as you did.
I got bored and clicked through all the Taylor Made Golf company trademarks. Not a single one pertained to anything in general*, i.e. not golf related, except for one for t-shirts but it specifically references their logo, not just characters. So it would seem that as long as this new group doesn't get into golf or design a logo that looks like the Taylor Made Golf company logo that they'll be just fine. I am not a lawyer so I may have missed something or simply be completely wrong (but this is the internet so that should all be implied).
*Side note: I had no idea Taylor Made Golf had such a side interest in cryptocurrency.
That's silly. Taylor Made is a common name for numerous businesses utilizing the name Taylor. As long as they are not selling golf clubs, Taylor Made the "Golf" company won't care. EX :
taylormadeoiltools.com
Innovative designer and quality manufacturer of a complete line of durable, downhole tools for Coiled Tubing, Wireline, Snubbing, and Completion.
Why would a runner, an individual who puts in thousands of hours a year training hard, allow themselves to be "made" by someone else? It completely devalues their own work. A very bizarre name.
Yeah, some of you guys know even less about lawsuits than you do about running. As long as it’s not a golf company the “Taylor” Made name is too common and flows too logically from her given last name. And it’s four professional runners in Provo so nobody cares anyway. That’s not worth the paper a cease and desist is written on.
Isn't one component that the name has to create confusion for the consumer also? If another golf club manufacturer tried to use a similar name that would be problematic.
Courtney Waymant and Whittni Orton her two most recent national champions graduated high school in 2016 so they were redshirt seniors at graduation. No extra years needed. Those are the only two I bothered to look up. I’m pretty sure historically only the men go on the 2 year religious mission trips. Check your facts.
Just some info about who goes on missions and who doesn't. The poster's probably a good bit younger than I am, so suggesting that males 'traditionally' go and females don't would be somewhat accurate. There was a period of decades when this was mostly (nowhere near 100% adherence to this but a casual observer would see just guys) true. But if you look over a long period, the social acceptance angle has changed a few times.
Lets go back to the '50s. My aunt went, my mom and uncle didn't. They were born in the '30s. So female participation was not taboo then. You might say 'only 1 in the family?' Well, there were not nearly as many positions available at the time. Huge sections of the world allow them now that didn't then.
Early '80s. This was my generation. All were strongly encouraged but there was still a limited number needed. Even this recent, you could apply and not get a 'call'. That was my experience.
(Straight- laced, not in trouble at all. The rowdy kids who were caught drinking, etc. could get turned down for stated reasons. But if you're under 40, you might not know that you could apply and simply not hear back prior to the Warsaw Pact and much of Asia opening.)
Anyway, only 2 my age got the 'call' from my Ward (the local congregation whom you see every week). One guy, one gal. She was the Bishop's daughter. The Bishop is the head of the Ward. With limited positions available, it may help to be able to pull strings, although I realize that the idea of being willing to go but not chosen is foreign to anyone much younger than I. They could use so many more now.
So, there was maybe a century when male and female participation was not just socially acceptable but encouraged. When this changed, I don't know exactly. Probably some time in the '90s. Certainly in time to affect anyone born in the '80s. Around the turn of the century, it was nearly all guys. The lasted for a stretch and, it seems to me, started changing the last few years.
So the '00s and '10s were just like most of you suspect - guys very strongly pressured, gals pressured the other direction (not to go) - the '20s might be moving back. Not 50/50 again (although for long periods in the past it was closer to this) but the '30s may see around the same amount of each. The young ladies don't seen to be told not to anymore.
most of the BYU women (including the two you named as well as other big names like Erica and Anna) are of the “average college age” if not on the younger side, being 22/23ish when they graduated.
Forget the age gripe for a second though, all the BYU women I’ve competed against are the most kind hearted and humble yet relentless (when it comes to training and racing) people out there. You guys don’t have to be so critical on here, especially if such great people.
Courtney Waymant and Whittni Orton her two most recent national champions graduated high school in 2016 so they were redshirt seniors at graduation. No extra years needed. Those are the only two I bothered to look up. I’m pretty sure historically only the men go on the 2 year religious mission trips. Check your facts.
Just some info about who goes on missions and who doesn't. The poster's probably a good bit younger than I am, so suggesting that males 'traditionally' go and females don't would be somewhat accurate. There was a period of decades when this was mostly (nowhere near 100% adherence to this but a casual observer would see just guys) true. But if you look over a long period, the social acceptance angle has changed a few times.
Lets go back to the '50s. My aunt went, my mom and uncle didn't. They were born in the '30s. So female participation was not taboo then. You might say 'only 1 in the family?' Well, there were not nearly as many positions available at the time. Huge sections of the world allow them now that didn't then.
Early '80s. This was my generation. All were strongly encouraged but there was still a limited number needed. Even this recent, you could apply and not get a 'call'. That was my experience.
(Straight- laced, not in trouble at all. The rowdy kids who were caught drinking, etc. could get turned down for stated reasons. But if you're under 40, you might not know that you could apply and simply not hear back prior to the Warsaw Pact and much of Asia opening.)
Anyway, only 2 my age got the 'call' from my Ward (the local congregation whom you see every week). One guy, one gal. She was the Bishop's daughter. The Bishop is the head of the Ward. With limited positions available, it may help to be able to pull strings, although I realize that the idea of being willing to go but not chosen is foreign to anyone much younger than I. They could use so many more now.
So, there was maybe a century when male and female participation was not just socially acceptable but encouraged. When this changed, I don't know exactly. Probably some time in the '90s. Certainly in time to affect anyone born in the '80s. Around the turn of the century, it was nearly all guys. The lasted for a stretch and, it seems to me, started changing the last few years.
So the '00s and '10s were just like most of you suspect - guys very strongly pressured, gals pressured the other direction (not to go) - the '20s might be moving back. Not 50/50 again (although for long periods in the past it was closer to this) but the '30s may see around the same amount of each. The young ladies don't seen to be told not to anymore.
I do t think there were limits based on available slots in the 80s. I want in 81.
I do t think there were limits based on available slots in the 80s. I want in 81.
Certainly not saying there were no spots available or that nobody went. As I mentioned, a guy (my best from the Ward, although my running partners at school may have been my real BFs) and girl that I grew up with went. This would have been '82. I had a brother who went a year and a half earlier than I would have. But there were just 2 my age from our large, urban Ward. I didn't get a call, and in my case it wasn't because I flunked any interview or whatever. I had never been to the County Juvenille Detention Center and didn't know where it was. I was Priest Quorum President before being ordained Elder.
There had to have been limits to how many could go. There were what, a 1/3 of the world or less with Missions in place? Maybe 1/4? Just saying that, according to my nephew and other younger folks, 100% of those expressing interest to the point of getting through the application process get calls. Well, maybe some get vetoed because they are the type that's seen the back of a cop car, so probably 99%.
Maybe my Ward was allowed 2 that year. Bishop's daughter took 1. A younger brother also didn't get in. That is, until my mom - very upstanding, founding member of the Ward - barged into the Bishop's office and raised Cain. They found a slot. Who got bumped because of that?
This team will not grow bigger and will not get new champion runners, they are stuck with what they have now.
Diljeet's recruits are the worst batch this year. Stanford, UNC, Alabama, OK State, NC State, Virginia, Colorado all got better recruits in the last 2 years. Hutchins was supposed to be the next big thing but ended up as a bust and is nowhere near "good" level.
Thats what most hillarious with these coach named clubs. The coaches that do it is totally irrelevant in track and field.
Coaching multiple NCAA champs makes you “relevant.”
No it doesn't. Its totally irrelevant for the global t&f sport. Who cares about some "champs" that isn't even national champs? Seriously. Name his athletes and why they matter for people utside the US.
