Jindal asks Louisiana attorney general to look into possible "Who Dat" lawsuit

Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal is wading into the ongoing kerfuffle regarding the league’s effort to crack down on merchandise bearing the Saints’ “Who Dat” slogan.

Per media reports, Jindal has asked the state’s attorney general to look into the possibility of suing the league regarding the issue.

It’s unknown whether Jindal’s position has been influenced by the league’s clarification of its copyright enforcement efforts.  Apparently, the league hopes only to block the sale of “Who Dat” items that contain other items or marks establishing a connection to the Saints.

37 responses to “Jindal asks Louisiana attorney general to look into possible "Who Dat" lawsuit

  1. its great how a group as (allegedly) prestigious as congress is looking into something as ridiculous as the franchise “who dat”

  2. As awful as the report INITIALLY SOUNDED, if merchandise has Saints trademarks on it, there’s not much to debate or wonder. Either the truth is somewhere in the middle or Rush is still crying so hard about losing the Rams he’s putting Bobby up to it.

  3. Apparently, the league decided to backtrack once the politicians got involved.
    We all saw the original letters down here.

  4. Oh good grief – Jindahl’s involvement means the situation is gonna start developing subtexts and sub-subtexts. He’s the only policitician I know who would never need a bullhorn. Even his thoughts are loud.

  5. Lame, this story is dumb. Unless you are a small store owner in New Orleans why would you care? I mean come on this is like the third post on this already!

  6. Jindal’s position has been influenced by his craven, pathetic delusions of higher office, which results in feeble attempts at love-me populist garbage like this one. I guess he had some free time after taking credit for the federal stimulus money he so vehemently complained about previously.

  7. I’m still trying to figure out. Does the nfl really own the phrase ‘who dat”
    or are they just trying to prevent shirts from having saints emblems with “who dat’ This hasnt been made clear anywhere.

  8. First of all I hate Jindal and all Republicans, well not all, but with this Jindal is right on point for looking into this. As much as I hate the Saints, the “Who Dat” has been used forever and it always takes “some” to catch on to what “others” have been saying for years. If the NFL is going to prohibit the use of the words “New Orleans Saints” or the NFL logo or Saints logo, that is fine. But in no way can they claim property if someone decides to print anything that uses the words “who dat”….there are so many ways to ask who dat gonna beat the saints, i came up with 6 already but I’m not going there because Florio might be working for that arse whipe Goddell

  9. This story has “Jumped The Shark”
    Mr. Florio:
    Pick up the phone and get David Duke’s Opine on this… That will make a great read.

  10. instead of Goddells GESTOPO stepping all over the little guy, lets see how they react when they piss off a US Senator & a Govenor,… this seems like a more fair fight

  11. SUE! SUE! SUE!
    i would love to see the big bad NFL get hit where it hurts them most. NFL = The greediest corporation in America.
    The same NFL that threatens churches if they show the Super Bowl to their congregations on Bigscreens

  12. The league already said it is going after vendors who have t-shirts that misuse the slogan with Saints or NFL images. They do not care if someone uses “Who Dat?” as long as it does not infringe on other trademarks. That is reasonable.

  13. Gee, why am I not surprised the NFL is more worried about money than the game itself? The League has long used the “refs” to influence the outcome of certain games, so I guess this shouldn’t come as any surprise.

  14. The suits at NFL are nothing but BULLYS. The don’t own the saying “WHO DAT” they only own the name “Saints” as it relates to football. Hope someone challenges them.

  15. I suppose the question would be the phrase, while used in connection with something the NFL DOES have trademarked (i.e the Saints logo). But there’s the rub. The French (and French-influenced areas, Quebec, New Orleans etc) have been using the Fleur-de-lis for oh, only about 1000 years. Its the Saints logo mainly because of the Franco influence of New Orleans, not the other way around. Its easy enough to take a slightly different looking fleur de lis and essentially claim its not the Saints logo, since it wouldnt be. The problem is, these small shop-owners, t-shirt distributors etc, certainly dont have the financial ability to get into a lawsuit with the NFL, and Goodell knows it. It’s an official symbol of the State of Louisiana. The NFL would be fighting an uphill battle in the courtroom on this, but this will never see an actual hearing, which is why the NFL thought they could pull a fast one here.

  16. I think the nation is seeing how annoying anything surrounding the Saints can be, now this organization has politicians wasting time with this. When the Colts beat the Saints next week, I hope there are controversial calls that go against the Saints. It would be fair if that did happen. I expect the Colts to beat them by a substantial margin. I wasn’t a Saints hater until last week when they proved to be deserving of hate.

  17. All you Jindal haters are deluded. Bobby Jindal has more intelligence than entire NFL combined. He’s not contemplating a lawsuit against the NFL to receive a monetary settlement. His interest is simply protecting Louisiana business’ from the NFL leviathan. I think it’s damn nice to see a state governor standing up for the rights of the people he represents.
    The ignorance on this blog is simply overwhelming.

  18. as ‘rush’ loses the rams, likely so does st. louis. that’s what it’s about.
    plus the lack of diversity of political opinion in high circles in america.

  19. BENCHTJACK says:
    January 31, 2010 12:57 AM
    Saints win = tainted win. Who dat gonna cheat the Vikes the Refs that’s who!
    You Viking fans never give up. Quit complaning.

  20. Having solved the problems of budget deficits, unemployment and health care, I’m encouraged that politicians are tackling this vital issue that threatens the very core of our great republic.

  21. In Other Breaking, Headline News:
    The Vikes turned the ball over 5 times, but have concluded a conspiracy exists with the refs…..
    Also, please do not hit our QB because it’s not fair….

  22. # downsouth49er says: January 31, 2010 2:43 AM
    First of all I hate Jindal and all Republicans, well not all, but with this Jindal is right on point for looking into this. As much as I hate the Saints, the “Who Dat” has been used forever and it always takes “some” to catch on to what “others” have been saying for years. If the NFL is going to prohibit the use of the words “New Orleans Saints” or the NFL logo or Saints logo, that is fine. But in no way can they claim property if someone decides to print anything that uses the words “who dat”….there are so many ways to ask who dat gonna beat the saints, i came up with 6 already but I’m not going there because Florio might be working for that arse whipe Goddell
    you’re an idiot

  23. Why is the NFL even bothering with this? The Saints logos are the state of Louisianna and the french spade thing. Things you see all the time in New Orleans that have nothing to do with their “cherished” football team.

  24. Mr. Rogers, er I mean Jindal is obviously looking for anything he can hang his hat on in an attempt to regain some form of credibility after that horridly pathetic rebuttal video of an Obama speech. The Republicans are so desperate to get their face on the air doing something relevant that this is what they’ve left with… hysterical. I can’t wait to see the next one weigh in on the shuffleboard rules at a local old folks home next!

  25. This is below the dignity of a US politician and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
    He shoud be working with Senator Specter to get us our Super Bowl trophy that the Patriots stole from us!

  26. This is actually something that is completely within the purview of a particular states attorney general. The very reason that they exist is to provide protection to both consumers and small business against either faulty products or un-based threats from larger companies.
    Also phil wright – All state budgets except for one state need to be balanced and health care is generally a federal question not a state question.
    There is an immense amount of civic pride in New Orleans right now – there is absolutely nothing wrong in a states politicians embracing the emotions of their constituents – these are state politicians after all. Understand the federal system before you start spouting off ignorant statements.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!