My understanding is that the only team name the league controls that came into play in recent years is "Ottawa Renegades" as the team was a CFL expansion team (a league creation). I believe Bob Young controls the trademarks as the club is a private entity (the Tigers and Wildcats predated the CFL after all).
Keep in mind the league had TWO Roughrider teams (Ottawa Rough Riders and the Saskatchewan Roughriders), so understand that the league doesn't have the control over teams it didn't create that one may assume. If Ottawa's possible future team were to readopt the Rough Rider monicker, there would a use precedent that would factor into any wrangle with the Regina club. Most likely, some accommodation would be made to Saskatchewan in that event.
The NFL Indianapolis Colts successfully litigated against the attempt by the league to call the Baltimore franchise the "Baltimore CFL Colts." The general idea as I understand it that there would be too much confusion in trade terms to have two Colts football teams operating simultaneously in a professional sport where the CFL expansion team (with no prior use precedent) would be effectively poaching upon the historic market of the NFL Colts franchise using that team name.
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/17/sports/pro-football-what-s-in-a-name-it-s-not-colts.html]http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/17/sport ... colts.html[/url]
In the Tigers vs. Tigers issue, understand that there is enough North American sports law in the operation of the New York football Giants and baseball Giants (as one historical example) that it is harder to argue trademark infringement across two distinct sports, even those operating in the same sports market. The overriding issue is whether the logos and other trademarks would be so similar as to create confusion in the public from a merchandising perspective.
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers went from Bruce The Pirate to a skull-and-swords-festooned pirate ship as a logo and the Oakland Raiders couldn't even block this in arguing infringement. It's not cut-and-dried in logo issues, either.
You do not have SF Giants vs. NY Giants in court and LSU vs. Detroit in the use of the "TIgers" brand. Again, the NCAA/MLB differentiation is also clear as is NCAA/NFL with Oklahoma State Cowboys coexisting with Dallas Cowboys oh my LOL. Exclusivity in mascot use is first and foremost league specific, followed by sport in the Colts case where traditional markers are affected.
For me, the Tiger-Cats brand has a distinctive history. There aren't many other entities using it and for most pro sports fans in Canada it is instantly associated with Hamilton. One might argue the change in logo was enough of a dilution of the team's heritage without having to chuck the team's name. It sounds to me the flip side of Ottawa's logo madness in the nineties, doubling the Rs, giving beavers lances FFS, and changing the team colours to a really really poor San Francisco Grade Niner ripoff.
Can we agree that making the Hamilton Tiger-Cats a winning franchise again IS the chief project that folks ought to focus upon?
Yours sincerely,
Russ, proponent of the next "Hamilton Wildcats the time has come ummmmm no" thread LOL