urbanMSP

Does it say if it is skyway or street? I am past my limit...

Skyway, I didn't think the wf towers had any street level retail...

Oh you're right, I guess they don't, because the little there will be is in the apartment buildings in front.

I'm curious what leverage the Vikings had in this in the first place. How can one entity control what another does with their property? I understand the city ordinance angle but the city should be able to give the OK to a sign without requiring legal permission from other parties. Did WF purchase some property from the Wilfs or something?

Something about this doesn't add up.

In reading a couple articles on this, Vikings had legal agreement with WF on the type of signage they would use and now they say WF is breaking their legal agreement

The total sky way sq footage is 7,200. So I think it might be either full? Or still has one space to go.

I'm curious what leverage the Vikings had in this in the first place. How can one entity control what another does with their property? I understand the city ordinance angle but the city should be able to give the OK to a sign without requiring legal permission from other parties. Did WF purchase some property from the Wilfs or something?

Something about this doesn't add up.

In reading a couple articles on this, Vikings had legal agreement with WF on the type of signage they would use and now they say WF is breaking their legal agreement

From an intellectual property rights perspective, this is a serious issue and - like them or not - the Vikings may have a serious substantive complaint. This is a matter of what rights were agreed to in a contractual manner not just between the Vikings and WF, but primarily between the Vikings and the State of Minnesota (and the MSFA). In the planning leading up to the building US Bank and the Ryan / WF project, I seem to recall that the entire area came under a single Downtown East development project.

Naming rights are a very valuable and bargained for commodity. In negotiations with the State (City of MPLS and MFSA, et al), the Vikings were given exclusive naming rights for the stadium along with some form of broader branding right that allows the Vikings to protect its brand for the immediate area. In the world of sports franchise branding, this is reasonably standard. The question is whether the immediate area of brand protection extends to the area that now includes the other large scale Downtown East project, Wells Fargo. As reported (and noted by others in this forum), there is reason to think that the Vikings were given some form of branding interest in the development area proximate to US Bank that includes WF.

If true, then it would also be true that both Ryan and WF were aware of this when deciding to build the office facilities on that location. As it is reported that WF agreed not to exceed certain signage parameters as part of an earlier agreement with the Vikings (and MSFA?), this confirms that the Vikings have some right of review suggesting that they may have a strong case.

The granting of naming rights creates a real ownership interest in a very valuable commodity - especially given that this concerns an NFL franchise. Although disputed, let's assume for this discussion that US Bank actually did offer $200 million for taking the name of the stadium. That $200 million in some measure reflects the strength of the NFL Vikings brand in national markets of interest. That's a very valuable commodity. If US Bank came back to the Vikings and argued for a reduced naming agreement, say $50 million less over the same period, owing to the brand dilution caused by WF poaching on the Vikings rights, that would be a 25% dilution in value causing $50 million dollars of damages by WF to the Vikings. In a sense, WF would then be gaining $50 million of free advertising by associating with the Vikings brand while not paying for it.

As noted, the actual outcome should be determined by what rights were actually granted the Vikings - it is assumed for the purpose of this note that the reporting is basically accurate. If so, the Vikings may have a real case and people should take note. If not, then WF might simply be taking advantage of free advertising brought on by the Vikings failure to properly secure its naming rights.

This will be closely watched by the relevant IPR community as well as the sports branding world.

It seems incredible that the Vikings would have any control over a plot of land they never owned. But what you're saying is that somehow this land, which was owned by the Star Tribune at the time, was involved in the stadium bill?

In general I'm curious about how the signage downtown works. The US Bank roof logo is unlike anything we have in Minneapolis. Was that a special exception, or could any new downtown building slope its roof and add a billboard? Even the Wells Fargo signage is bigger than anything outside of Target Field, isn't it?

^ you may want to read the complaint, as it lays out how an agreement was reached. Essentially, the Vikings group had fought the proposed WF rooftop signage since it required zoning changes and approval, but agreed to stop their appeals / opposition if WF agreed to certain signage parameters. Those parameters, according to the Vikings, was a max size for specific rooftop signs that would be flat/painted onto the roof and non-illuminated. WF later came back and allegedly told the Vikings that if they did not agree to a new signage plan, that they would simply illuminate the whole roof, which the Vikings allegedly warning them of the possibility of enforcement of their agreement. Now they allege that WF is building raised letters against a flat background that are illuminated and seek an injunction since the Vikings do not believe financial damages are appropriate.

Didier, there is an entire business sector and area of law that deals with this type of branding. For those not familiar with it, is seems strange. But its actually a reasonably mature business with settled legal principles. Because there is great value in naming rights for sports franchises, their facilities and their surroundings, especially the NFL, it should be assumed that this was one of the things the Vikings negotiated for and was granted as part of the stadium development process because this is standard - almost boilerplate - in such development projects. Assuming the underlying facts are as reported (for example Tahtchio's above) It would be very surprising had the Vikings not secured such branding rights / rights of refusal.

Accepting as accurate what Thatchio says above, the question is what those zoning standards are and who set them. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE RELEVANT ZONING LAWS AND HENCE DON'T KNOW WHO SET THEM FOR WHAT REASON - so what follows is just what one expects to see based on how such projects are often structured. One would expect that the zoning law was established for the entire Downtown East as a defined development zone where the linchpin was a new stadium. The zoning regulations set for the Downtown East were probably established in recognition of the naming rights and may have been a specifically negotiated aspect of it. (NOTE - the transit bridge which started with no Viking funding ended with the Vikings paying for most of it but getting all advertising rights associated with that area as a way to recoup costs over time)

If this is true, or is close to something like it, it means that the Vikings may have an actual contractual property right in the signage for the area that weighed in its decision to built / operate the stadium in East Downtown. But it would also be true that both Ryan and WF were aware of such an encumbrance when making their decision to build in Downtown East close to the Stadium.

The question will be whether the WF signs as being installed interfere with the Vikings advertising/branding rights. This in turn will be determined - or should be determined - strictly by what was agreed to as memorialized in the zoning regulations and related agreements based on what they say and what was meant if/when the Vikings relied on this understanding when making their decision to build.

The actual language and supporting agreements may support this explanation or paint a different picture altogether. As it stands, and given the Vikings proactive aggressive approach, it seems from the circumstances that at least the Vikings think they secured such a right. On this last point, a key requirement of trademark/branding law is that one cannot sit on ones rights - meaning that for the Vikings to prevail, they must act immediately or risk losing by "sitting on their rights".

Home... or a conveniently located migratory bird cemetery...

Off topic but ever notice how geese aren't as bad as they used to be? Apparently the coyote population has increased throughout the eastern US and kept them at bay. They also help control feral cats, rats, mice, and deer.

Thank you so much for this.

StarTrib calls this a "Photobomb" issue. I agree. Do you think this kind of thing happens in NYC/CHI. I bet not.seems very petty. This signage will be on TV maybe 10x/year (and Vikiings can request Wells Fargo be out of frame) and this agreement should not hinder the growth and aesthetic of DTE.
Its Pet-ty

StarTrib calls this a "Photobomb" issue. I agree. Do you think this kind of thing happens in NYC/CHI. I bet not.seems very petty. This signage will be on TV maybe 10x/year (and Vikiings can request Wells Fargo be out of frame) and this agreement should not hinder the growth and aesthetic of DTE.
Its Pet-ty

That is because the NY stadiums are out on a large plot of land they own. And Soldier Field is in a park. But Barclays and MSG are in urban areas, and their are signs all over for other companies. Also, just look at Target Center. Right across the street is a 20 story high sign for the hotel. How is that any different?

Well, Loews isn't a direct competitor of Target like Wells Fargo is of USBank. So it's a little different.

StarTrib calls this a "Photobomb" issue. I agree. Do you think this kind of thing happens in NYC/CHI. I bet not.seems very petty. This signage will be on TV maybe 10x/year (and Vikiings can request Wells Fargo be out of frame) and this agreement should not hinder the growth and aesthetic of DTE.
Its Pet-ty

That is because the NY stadiums are out on a large plot of land they own. And Soldier Field is in a park. But Barclays and MSG are in urban areas, and their are signs all over for other companies. Also, just look at Target Center. Right across the street is a 20 story high sign for the hotel. How is that any different?

Have you heard of Barclays in the center of Brooklyn. MSG in Manhattan? Maybe Microsoft Theater in LA


Wait are you disagreeing with me or...?

Home... or a conveniently located migratory bird cemetery...

Off topic but ever notice how geese aren't as bad as they used to be? Apparently the coyote population has increased throughout the eastern US and kept them at bay. They also help control feral cats, rats, mice, and deer.

Thank you so much for this.

Heh, anytime. I remember hearing that and then it dawned on me that you don't see the flocks of geese in every park anymore.

StarTrib calls this a "Photobomb" issue. I agree. Do you think this kind of thing happens in NYC/CHI. I bet not.seems very petty. This signage will be on TV maybe 10x/year (and Vikiings can request Wells Fargo be out of frame) and this agreement should not hinder the growth and aesthetic of DTE.
Its Pet-ty

That is because the NY stadiums are out on a large plot of land they own. And Soldier Field is in a park. But Barclays and MSG are in urban areas, and their are signs all over for other companies. Also, just look at Target Center. Right across the street is a 20 story high sign for the hotel. How is that any different?

Have you heard of Barclays in the center of Brooklyn. MSG in Manhattan? Maybe Microsoft Theater in LA


Wait are you disagreeing with me or...?

Sorry. I thought you were arguing the other way. Carry on

First hearing on SignGate will be 1/15:

http://www.startribune.com/vikings-well ... 363863571/

Am I misunderstanding the complaint, or is the Star Tribune? They keep showing shots of the Wells Fargo signs on the *sides* of the building, and I think the complaint is about the giant sign on the *roof* that you can see in the stadium construction cameras.

Am I misunderstanding the complaint, or is the Star Tribune? They keep showing shots of the Wells Fargo signs on the *sides* of the building, and I think the complaint is about the giant sign on the *roof* that you can see in the stadium construction cameras.

It is the one on the roof that is drawing the ire!