haqq777
Legend
Well, at least that mystery is solved.
RF Logo Rights Coming Back to Federer
- Thread starter haqq777
- Start date
Well, at least that mystery is solved.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Unless Federer confirms it personally or officially via someone else it is not resolved, but rumours have been circulating from a couple of weeks that that is the case.
Why does it have to be a secret deal? Maybe (if true, of course) they have finally resolved their issues or there was a clause that says in what circumstances the logo transfers back to Federer. After all, he hinted as much right at the beginning of the whole logo saga.
Why does it have to be a secret deal? Maybe (if true, of course) they have finally resolved their issues or there was a clause that says in what circumstances the logo transfers back to Federer. After all, he hinted as much right at the beginning of the whole logo saga.
jmacdaununder2
Legend
What, you mean only put it on the not so ugly stuff?Cool they can put it on Uniqlo stuff that isn't sold or available anywhere.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Yeah, he's not wearing shoes for free in some swapsie. The logo deal is separate and there was an existing arrangement of how to handle a parting of ways as Federer has hinted at every time he's mentioned the status of the logo.
Occam's Razor: it's being resolved exactly as their existing agreement had already planned for.
Rhino
Legend
Federer originally said in 2018: "The “RF” logo is with Nike at the moment, but it will come to me at some point. I hope rather sooner than later, that Nike can be nice and helpful in the process to bring it over to me."
He made it sound like there was no clarity on the time frame, and that the details were still not 100% defined. New agreements can be made, old agreements can be amended.
Shangri La
Hall of Fame
Noticed he’s wearing Nike RF shoes again at the uso. Which I think he hasn’t been in quite a while.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
It is entirely possible that the transfer period was not a fixed amount of time and probably included various requirements and outcomes, including early transfer in the case that both sides agree on that. Considering what you just quoted Federer probably had an idea in his head what "sooner" and "later" respectively mean, being privy with the said clause, of course. We will probably never know (if it happens) in which scenario the elapsed until now time fits. It is entirely possible that the period for transfer was much longer, and both sides cut corners to get faster there or that one of the parties was having problems and the elapsed time is the maximum time. Really, there can be so many details that can give an entirely new interpretation to the whole situation, and without knowing them it is almost impossible to reach any solid conclusions.
It is interesting whether Uniqlo will try to use the logo at all. They already stated that they don't intend to, but that might have been in order to limit their involvement in the whole issue. They used Djokovic's logo, so in theory it is not out of the question, but I don't remember when the Djokovic's logo was created. If it was during his time with them then it is a different case altogether.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
jmacdaununder2
Legend
'...to get faster there'; 'He wears...'.
Last edited:
Shangri La
Hall of Fame
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
So, like I said, Occam's Razor: it's happening now exactly as their agreement intended. Back then he might have been trying to speed up timing of the transfer and that's where the parties didn't find a meeting of minds or a path they were both happy with. And so, Occam's Razor again, Fed has just waited out the time. No panic, no public bust-ups, just sorting it in an appropriate manner.
His comments back then show he knows it will come back to him and that he's smart enough to not put a date on publicly it because it'd have just triggered expectations - probably unrealistic given he was likely trying to get it back quicker. The second he put a date/timeframe on it before it was sorted he'd have handed all of any leverage in any discussions to Nike.
RFRF
Semi-Pro
PeRFectly put mateCool they can put it on Uniqlo stuff that isn't sold or available anywhere.
Nostradamus
Bionic Poster
This is our green light to sell these Uniqlo tshirts with RF logo on it in millions. we can sell it in my shopify store. Everyone that saw your tshirts are either amazed by it or they are extremely jealous that they can't buy it.........LOL
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I was in Strasbourg a couple of days ago, and they had parts of the RG collection in S and M. They don't have them on Uniqlo France online shop, which tells me that Uniqlo is set on making the people go to their physical stores in the cases where they have physical stores. Whether that and availability will be changed in the future is unclear, but they might be experiencing a shock from the unexpected huge interest. They had Djokovic as a benchmark, but Federer is not Djokovic as far as selling power goes and they surely have noticed that, but they will certainly not compromise their main business just for a few more bucks here and there. The initial Wimbledon run with the pre-orders was probably the testing tool for what they should plan in the future, and that might also have given inaccurate representation of what the demand will be as many people had to come around the idea that they are getting quality for their money.
jmacdaununder2
Legend
The vast majority of the Uniqlo France stores are located around Paris for the benefit of aesthetically challenged tourists; but seeing as in your estimation France is about the size of Manhattan, the vast majority of the country's populace will be able to just walk in no?
Rhino
Legend
He wears RF shoes since Madrid.
He never stopped wearing RF shoes. Every pair he has worn on court since he started with Uniqlo has had the RF logo stitched onto the tongue.
SQA333
Hall of Fame
He wears RF shoes since Madrid.
More like he's never stopped wearing RF shoes.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
The vast majority of the Uniqlo France stores are located around Paris for the benefit of aesthetically challenged tourists; but seeing as in your estimation France is about the size of Manhattan, the vast majority of the country's populace will be able to just walk in no?
Uniqlo has 26 locations in France and 15 of them are not anywhere near Paris (also one is 35 km from the centre of Paris, midway between Paris and Melun/Fontainebleau area). Paris is also a 12 mil citizens metropole, but I understand that not having an idea about France, Paris or, indeed, aesthetic, can result in such a post.
Last edited:
jmacdaununder2
Legend
Sorry, okay then lets accept your statement that something under half (11) of their stores are located around Paris; then according to you the remaining 15 non-Parisian stores coupled with a lack of on line availability are enough to 'force' the remaining 55 million non-Parisian French residents spread over 500,000 square kilometres plus to travel huge distances to shop in store rather than on line!
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Sorry, okay then lets accept your statement that something under half (11) of their stores are located around Paris; then according to you the remaining 15 non-Parisian stores coupled with a lack of on line availability are enough to 'force' the remaining 55 million non-Parisian French residents spread over 500,000 square kilometres plus to travel huge distances to shop in store rather than on line!
Uniqlo is at the beginning of the process of the saturation on non SE Asian markets with physical stores. Their strategy outside of that region includes saturating the most densely populated/biggest city in the respective country with disproportionally high number of stores (compared to the rest of the country) and then opening up stores in the other major cities. Given the predictions of the world's population mostly living in the big cities in the near future and that population having the most disposable income, it is a sound strategy to maximise their physical presence and earnings. They are not aiming at opening a store in every village, and neither does any other apparel retail chain in the world.
The French don't have to travel "huge distances" to buy stuff, if they so wish, as those other stores are very well distributed and cover all of the big cities in France. If a person doesn't do much travel at all, the chances are that he is not particularly active, is not interested in buying a lot of stuff, and has little disposable income, let alone for highly specific needs such as tennis apparel.
That is, of course, not considering the biggest issue with such line of thinking, and that is missing the point that the visit to the store is just a link in the chain of the overall exposure, which is then extended by their online presence, and, as far as I have noticed, they don't have a problem of providing most everything that they produce for their main business.
I don't understand why you don't just give up with your quest to blast Uniqlo. It is clear that your advancements regarding the brand are neither well informed, nor particularly for the purpose of actually using them, nor dictated by any sort of objectivity.
jmacdaununder2
Legend
Again if we exclude Paris, there's one store in every 33,000 square kilometres; with saturation like that, obviously you wouldn't bother to shop on line, you'd make the effort to journey forever just to shop the extensive tennis range that is undoubtedly present in every shop.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Again if we exclude Paris, there's one store in every 33,000 square kilometres; with saturation like that, obviously you wouldn't bother to shop on line, you'd make the effort to journey forever just to shop the extensive tennis range that is undoubtedly present in every shop.
Why would you exclude the city where a little less than one fifth of the population of the country lives? What does that achieve for your point?
Also, you continue to construct logical fallacies: nowhere in what I said the online trade is excluded. I said that Uniqlo is determined to bring the customers to their physical stores in the cases where they have physical stores. I confirmed that also a second time in a subsequent post, so no excuse why you insist that to be unclear to you. I also said that they are in a process of expansion. Surely, you wouldn't miss all those comments, unless you intentionally are trying to.
Again if we exclude Paris, there's one store in every 33,000 square kilometres; with saturation like that, obviously you wouldn't bother to shop on line, you'd make the effort to journey forever just to shop the extensive tennis range that is undoubtedly present in every shop.
Not all products generate same turnover in a big city and small village.
It might be wise for them to have proper online presence, but we don't know what holds them back.
Perhaps there is a good reason why they start with big cities and try to attract people into the physical stores.
Capulin Zurdo
Hall of Fame
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Wonder how much he paid for that.
What residuals does Nike get and what does Fed get?
What roayalties for Nike moving forward?
I am betting that is all part of it.
They certainly aren't giving him the rights.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
The ways some people are so entangled in keeping believing are fricking hilarious.
Please, enlighten us what is the source of the following suggestions in your post:
1) that Federer had to pay something to get his logo back
2) that there are residuals (what does that even mean?) for either side
3) that Nike will receive royalties "moving forward"
4) makes you believe that they "are not giving him the rights"
That is even before it is even sure that the information that the logo transfers to Federer is true.
Subway Tennis
Legend
Reasons for Nike wanting to retain ownership of the logo:
- leverage for Roger to return to Nike Once his Uniqlo tenure expires
- waiting to receive genuine value for the logo (a commercial property). Roger may have tried to lowball them.
- the logo is something that would have cost them a lot of money to develop and complete. Why would they give it away?
- they may want to retain it to use as a legacy brand somewhere down the line, the same way they have revived the somewhat timeless "Nike Court" brandmark, after not using it for years.
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
The ways some people are so entangled in keeping believing are fricking hilarious.
Please, enlighten us what is the source of the following suggestions in your post:
1) that Federer had to pay something to get his logo back
2) that there are residuals (what does that even mean?) for either side
3) that Nike will receive royalties "moving forward"
4) makes you believe that they "are not giving him the rights"
That is even before it is even sure that the information that the logo transfers to Federer is true.
The source is any website with info on abandoned trademarks.
Plain and simple, Nike owns the rights.
The only way Fed could get them back is to have the right usage expire under normal terms (they have to renew every 10 years, but Nike has first right of refusal so they won't lose it there) or to negotiate a buyout or deal. Nike did stop selling RF gear sometime last year I think, but there has to be 3-5 years of inactivity of the logo before aything could happen there for Roger to aquire it as an abandoned trademark, but he has no direct right to it so you KNOW there would be a TON of companies and people looking to register it and make bank with it. So Rog doesn't want that situation to be open. And with Uniclo stating they are NOT using it in any way, this is sqaurely on Rog.
Nike kinda Diss'ing Fed and keeping the logo is purely business and showd they aren't going to give it to him.
I doubt we will really know specifics of what deal was struck, but something of what I stated transpired.
haqq777
Legend
I'm very curious about how all this unfolds. For all I know, it could all have already been worked out behind closed doors and general public wouldn't get to know diddly squat about the workings details. So many theories here for RF logo on TW it is beyond amusing, lol
ChaelAZ
G.O.A.T.
Please, post the relevant source that states under what conditions "Nike owns the rights" for the RF logo. The source you mention is irrelevant to that. Also, do you make a difference between scenarios where by contract Nike owns the rights until certain conditions are met and then doesn't after that?
Those statements indicate that you have intimate knowledge of what is written in the contract between Federer and Nike. Do you have such knowledge?
Why would they do that, if they straightforward own the logo as you say? They could sell RF shoes. The market for those certainly hasn't disappeared, so why?
Again, I have to ask, where have you got that information from? You are venturing into absurd outcomes and go from there to prove that the scenarios that lead to those outcomes are also ridiculous.
It looks like for many Nike fans the only way of regulating business deals when the developments don't go according to their expectations is who will manage to screw the other side worse (and in their mind Nike always has the upper hand). Apart from that being indictment of the company you are sympathetic to, if it conducts its business that way, it doesn't say a thing about the details in the contract in discussion, and that is all that matters.
I read before here from the same people that Federer would never leave Nike (because, you see, Nike are the best) , then that Federer would never receive the money that he is rumoured to have gotten (because if Nike didn't give it to him, no one can, because, again, Nike are the biggest buyer and noone can afford to spent more than them), then I read that Federer will be begging them to get back on board (because Nike are so awesome, that only in their sphere life is meaningful, forget 300 mil dollars bigger wealth), then I read that Federer has blown his chance to secure his legacy as a brand (as if Nike makes the RF brand), then I read how Federer would never get his logo back (because Nike are so powerful and so awesome in their ways that they will keep it even if it doesn't make business sense to "punish" Federer even if the contract actually says something else), and now I read that Federer will be paying dearly for the return of his logo.
So, based on all of the above and IF Federer actually gets his logo back, I advice you and everyone like you to put that in your head: unless the details from the contract concerning the transition are made public, no one knows actually how and why the logo was transferred to Federer. It can be any sort of agreement that is in the contract.
Ok. I am sure Nike is just giving it to him because they love him and no standard trademark laws apply. That is totally not ridiculous and absurd.
Maybe now that Fed is buying them back he can sell his own clothing like with royalties to Nike. Or maybe make a legacy brand and pays royalties to Nike.
At least Djo secured his logo rights smartly, unlike Fed. I think Nadal own's his as well.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
This is absolutely not the case at all. They has usage rights as long as he was involved and then some hangover at the end for many practical reasons. All along Federer has said the logo will be coming to him, whether soon or later. He would not say that if there wasn't some existing agreement between the parties as to the ongoing use of the logo.
Nike, being a massive, experienced company would find a way to use it enough to prevent any sort of argument being formed if that was the case.
They have a prior agreement pure and simple. He had great representation by the time the logo came about and there's no way they would have let him sign something that gave him no rights or co-ownership, even if one which was triggered by the end of their partnership.
We do, however, know that there was an agreement because everything Federer has said indicates that.
sixone90
Hall of Fame
Like it says in the original post. Beginning of next year.
Bender
G.O.A.T.
Best logo
shapovalovnextgoat
Rookie
FDER?
Bender
G.O.A.T.
racquetreligion
Hall of Fame
How bout FED-UP or ROGR?
its no longer a FED-ERA
its no longer a FED-ERA
