Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
I'll note here that this bears virtually no resemblence to what I said.... I said that we wanted them to promote themselves effectively, and I don't see how the new logo is any better at it than the old one. Especially since the old one already has several years of recognition behind it, and is obviously beloved by a large portion of the community.
|
For purposes of intellectual property rights, however, FIRST must demonstrate that it intends to defend the use and appearance of its corporate logo and brand identity. In such matters, precedent can be exceptionally important and FIRST has demonstrated over the years that it was not interested in defending the identity of its brand by allowing teams and individuals to modify their logo in almost any way imaginable.
As an extension of that, the new logo gives FIRST new footing in its claims to defend its brand identity because, from the start, they've stipulated that no modifications may be made. What's left now is for them to follow through on those criteria, establishing precedent that protects them from copyright violation in the future. Once that precedent exists, FIRST can begin to aggressively market itself to a wider audience without any chance of its logo being coopted, defamed, or otherwise challenged.
I wonder, though, what steps FIRST might really take to defend its brand. Were it necessary, would FIRST sue a team for making inappropriate changes to its branding? While that might be necessary for continued legal defense of the organization, it will obviously breed resentment among its participants that are, in my opinion, its strongest tool and most identifiable brand.
Further, what happens now to teams and support organizations that have existing logos that rely on or are built from the old FIRST logo?