The NFL says that local New Orleans businesses can’t profit from the phrase “Who Dat.” We noted yesterday that shopkeepers probably lacked the muscle to fight the league on the issue, but they now have some strong political backers in their corner.
Senator David Vitter and the man he’s running against Charlie Melancon have put partisan bickering aside to support Who Dat Nation, according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
Melacon, a Democratic challenger, has started an online petition. Vitter penned a long letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell that we recommend reading in its entirety here. Vitter presents a convincing historical argument of where the phrase originated and its place in popular Louisiana culture.
Of course, we know the two candidates are largely just grandstanding for votes. And that the NFL has a bigger problem with the use of the Saints logo than the phrase itself.
Here’s our favorite passage from Senator Vitter.
“This letter will also serve as formal legal notice that I am having
t-shirts printed that say ‘WHO DAT say we can’t print Who Dat!’ for
widespread sale in commerce. Please either drop your present
ridiculous position or sue me.”
Your move, commish.
Awesome.
I might move to New Orleans just so I can vote for Vitter.
Vitter? That lying skunk. I go on PFT to get away from dirtbags like him. I guess there is no avoiding it.
Remember Education isn’t very high in LOUSYanna and these two knuckleheads epitomize it. I think it’ll be even funnier when the Monday following the SB when Colts fans pile on here saying ‘Who dat themks day beat dem Colts”
This is the actual effect of American Needle. The Saints cannot partner with these small businesses to sell the merchandise officially because of the stupid exclusive agreement with Reebock.
First Corrine Brown talkin bout tha Gatas and Corch Irvin Meyers and now this Senator is runnin round screamin Who Dat!
I think the Vatican should sue the NFL for profiting from use of the term “Saints”.
So, If have a white t-shirt and have it in blue lettering that says Who Dat I can get sued by the NFL??? Since when was Who Dat something the NFL came up with. I get the team colors and logo’s can’t be used, be the phrase??!!
Don’t they have to pay royalties to Amos ‘n Andy?
Shouldn’t these guys be investigating important matters such as the BCS, rather than wasting their time with stuff like this?
Well played, very well played.
Why is the senate so involved with the NFL & everything that is done??? Goodell must really be making some wrong decisions!!! Might be time for Goodell to Quit!!! There were no govt. involved till he took over???
love it!
thats awsome
as ace ventura said
candidate said to goodell “i have exorcised the demon”- suck that roger!
Those Bayou politicians have some bite. Goodell better watch his backside before he loses a chunk.
Oh NFL… the fleur-de-lis was a symbol long before the Saints of New Orleans existed. If you take a close look at the pic in the article linked to above (here: http://media.nola.com/politics/photo/who-dat-nation-saints-f-2jpg-9e705f75a15ced7a_large.jpg) you can see that the graphic isn’t actually the Saints logo, but a more generic looking fleur-de-lis.
he’d get my vote haha
HAHA
Wow, pandering much gentleman? Are these two clowns actually going to make me side with the NFL over an issue? What Senator Vitter didn’t say was that he was also going to begin printing his message on diapers. http://wonkette.com/277270/diaperman-david-vitter-likes-his-diapers
Watch out Ochocinco Goodell may fine you because Saints fans want to print Who Dat t-shirts.
I wonder if the NFL got any money from the old Oilers “Luv Ya Blue” crap from back in the day? If they didn’t then, why should they now?
Did Vitter write the letter before, after or during sex with a prostitute?
Well played Senator….well played.
that’s most sensible thing David Vitter has done in his political career.
NICE! The No Fun League needs to be taken down MANY, MANY notches. With Der Fuhrer at the helm, it’ll be hard. However, this is a positive step in the right direction.
Grandstanding or not – I LOVE IT. The Golden Weasel needs to be put in his place.
I’m not even a Saints fan.. but “atta boy!!!” to Senator Vitter!!!! Shame on the NFL for being such a bully!!!! I’ve thought this for a while, but Goodell seems to want to control or change EVERYTHING!!! It’s as though he’s changing things SIMPLY for the sake of change!!
Rosenthal – did all of the comments on the Mancrunch ad being pulled tip over the PFT hampster cage after it was posted?
Hell yeah that’s awesome!!!
Well…this should certainly damper the Mission Accomplished decree from Rog about the Pro Bowl…
I wonder where Vitter stands on prostitution in the state of LA? He is all for it in DC, at least thats what the phone logs say. He should support the small business owners working the streets those shops are located on.
Vitter needs to go actually do his job before he starts criticizing the NFL for doing theirs. The NFL isn’t stopping them from using the phrase “Who Dat?” They are stopping them from using official NFL colors and symbols.
Poor Goodell. He just doesn’t make enough money. Now he wants to control words that he and the NFL have nothing to do with. He’s a turd.
Was this before or after Vitter got that hummer from the madam?
Who Dat
Who Cares
Then after the SuperBowl, they can print shirts that say ‘Who Dat Truck Dat Just Ran Us Over’.
owned.
This-all reminds me of the letter Groucho Marx wrote to Jack Warner when Warner Bros. lawyers sent the Marx Bros a letter threatening to sue over their use of the title “A Night In Casablanca” for the Marx Bros. movie. Warners claimed it infringed its movie title, “Casablanca.”
Groucho fired back threatening to sue Warner Bros. over the use of Bros. — claiming the Marx Bros had it first!
If you can find it online — the letter is a hoot! There was no lawsuit.
Apparently there is more than one way of conquering a city and holding it as your own. For example, up to the time that we contemplated making a picture, I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged to the Warner Brothers.
However, it was only a few days after our announcement appeared that we received a long, ominous legal document warning us not to use the name “Casablanca.”
It seems that in 1471, Ferdinand Balboa Warner, the great-great grandfather of Harry and Jack, while looking for a shortcut to the city of Burbank, had stumbled on the shores of Africa and, raising his alpenstock, which he later turned in for a hundred shares of the common, he named it Casablanca.
I just can’t understand your attitude. Even if they plan on re-releasing the picture, I am sure that the average movie fan could learn to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo. I don’t know whether I could, but I certainly would like to try.
You claim you own Casablanca and that no one else can use that name without your permission. What about Warner Brothers — do you own that, too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about Brothers. Professionally, we were brothers long before you were.
Even before us, there had been other brothers — the Smith Brothers, the Brothers Karamazov; Dan Brouthers, an outfielder with Detroit, and “Brother, can you spare a dime?” This was originally “Brothers, can you spare a dime,” but this was spreading a dime pretty thin,
The younger Warner Brother calls himself Jack. Does he claim that, too? It’s not an original name — it was used long before he was born, Offhand, I can think of two Jacks — there was Jack of “Jack and the Beanstalk” and Jack the Ripper, who cut quite a figure in his day.
As for Harry, offhand I can think of two Harrys that preceded him. There was Lighthorse Harry of revolutionary fame and a Harry Appelbaum, who lived on the corner of 93rd Street and Lexington Avenue.
This all seems to add up to a pretty bitter tirade but I don’t mean to. I love Warners — some of my best friends are Warner Brothers. I have a hunch that this attempt to prevent us from using the title is the scheme of some ferret-faced shyster serving an apprenticeship in their legal department. I know the type — hot out of law school, hungry for success and too ambitious to follow the natural laws of promotion, this bar sinister probably needled Warner’s attorneys, most of whom are fine fellows with curly black hair, double-breasted suits etc. in attempting to enjoin us.
Well, he won’t get away with it! We’ll fight him to the highest court! No pasty-faced legal adventurer is going to cause bad blood between the Warners and the Marxes. We are all brothers under the skin and we’ll remain friends till the last reel of “A Night in Casablanca” goes tumbling over the spool.
ill say ” Who Dat ” how much do I owe you ?
If the NFL could lay claim to “Pants on the Ground” in order to make a $$$$$, it would.
The loyal members of the Who Dat Nation have only to go to http://www.zazzle.com/ . Anyone can create a “Who Dat” t-shirt, hoodie, tank top, etc., by using this site.
I have nothing to gain, personally. I’m just sick of the NFL, MLB, NBA,etc. telling fans what they can and cannnot do. That is, all the while charging exhorbitant prices for tickets, concessions, apparel, etc.
The NFL can’t prevent individuals from making their own personal fan wear if it is created for personal use, in my opinion .
‘WHO DAT say we can’t print Who Dat!’
Shouldn’t that sentence have a question mark as well? Or is this solely an exclamation? If you ask a rhetorical question loudly, are you then able to eschew the question mark?
I love it.
Teams shouldn’t be able to ™ commonplace phrases such as “Who Dat” or “19-0.”
So does this mean the Arizona Cardinals
can sue the St. Louis Cardinals or The Stanford Cardinals sue every team with the name Cardinals
So does this mean the Arizona Cardinals can sue
the St. Louis Cardinals or the Stanford Cardinlas
for the use the the word Cardinals
The NFL ia trying to brake the players and the owners make plenty. The NFL has an unfair advantage in not having to go by anti-trust Laws. And they like to Bully these people making a few shirts.
Congress should shit all over them in every way they can. They need to watch these greedy owners closer than they do. Hell they already have changed the rules to the point where they can bend a win like they did to the Saints without a person saying a word.
I remember chanting “who dat” in middle school football nearly thirty years ago. It was used by all schools back then.
More and more its becoming obvious that Goodell is an a-hole. How can the NFL really believe it could own a phrase like that? Its disgraceful. Whether or not that saying was used years ago, it doesnt use the Saints logo or the team name and therefore should not be considered a property of the NFL. what a bunch of greedy scumbags
# phillybird says: January 29, 2010 6:05 PM
So does this mean the Arizona Cardinals can sue
the St. Louis Cardinals or the Stanford Cardinlas
for the use the the word Cardinals
uh… its Stanford Cardinal (no plural) different mascot reference….but I get your meaning
Don’t get me wrong. I think it is rubbish that the NFL is making a stink over this. But if Who Dat? is being presented in the Saints font and colors (or in other words using the Saints identity), that may be more where the legal issue arises. More so than the use of “Who Dat?” Imitation of someone’s identity is a trademark infringement.