Another take could be that his weight is under control and he doesn't have to cut.
So many different possibilities for people who want to read things he didn't actually say.
Why "Social Media" is great....
- Thread starter dunkej01
- Start date
So many different possibilities for people who want to read things he didn't actually say.
I don't think any extra accommodation, attention, or punishment should be involved at all.
The brackets are the brackets. If Iranian athletes forfeit, OK. That sucks for them I guess.
...or do nothing and let the chips fall where they may, bracketology-wise. Starting game-playing such as this has no end.
Plus, this is bigger than just wrestling. We tend to think in a vacuum consisting of only the world of wrestling...when there's many, many, many other sports where this discussion could take place.
Plus, this is bigger than just wrestling. We tend to think in a vacuum consisting of only the world of wrestling...when there's many, many, many other sports where this discussion could take place.
certainly could be interpreted a few ways.. A comment by ausin gomez says something to the lines of 133 tho in which Rivera says love your thinking
Another take, regarding itching for the mat, is ringworm.
I know, not wrestling but too funny not to share on this thread.
Cool play in the Fresno State game. Bo Nickal had better luck with Josh Hokit in March than the Goofers’ D did today.
Is the Matt Lee listed at 152 from M2 Training Center the same Matt Lee that is related to Nick and Joe?
Good catch. Most likely yes -- listed credential = "Multiple TIme State Champion (list of states including Indiana, not including PA)." And the right weight and year (12th).
He also has PA listed as his state. Wonder if he will forgo his senior season and train at M2 and with NLWC? Matt is also the best athlete of the 3 boys from what I have heard multiple times.
Last edited:
Vasquez, Ayala, Gallagher, and Facundo.
Football games can be a fickle recruiting mistresses. That one nearly backfired for Harbaugh, let alone Bormet.
Let's hope we take care of Pitt next week with AJ in town. I wonder when we are hosting Facundo?
It's a good thing the Steelers have nothing to do with recruiting college kids to the area - yuck!
Forgo senior season? To train with DT at the best camp in PA?? To become a PA resident and save mucho $$ on tuition??? Preposterous!! Where would you ever get that cockamamie idear?
Last edited:
I can't believe it. I seriously dont know how that guy is going to make 57kg and still be able to compete. I thought he grew into 33 without the ability to go back to 25. I guess I was wrong. He was absolutely jacked. I can't imagine trying to find a way to lose those few extra pounds.
Last edited:
I am unsure when exactly, but I do believe this kid ends up a high quality lightweight hammer for the Lions.
Soooooo he isnt transferring????
#niceproduction
#seasonneedstogethere
#summerinterwebsloveshomesickness
#eatitturk
As expected, the PTO shot tOSU down.
Can't direct link to the decision (really, "office action") but I can paste the relevant chunk, bolding the most relevant parts.
SECTIONS 1, 2 and 45 REFUSAL – FAILURE TO FUNCTION – MERELY ORNAMENTAL
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of applicant’s clothing and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from others. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (TTAB 2013); In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq.
The size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as used on the goods are all relevant factors in determining the commercial impression of the applied-for mark. See, e.g., In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1403 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1178 (TTAB 2013)); In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d at 1687 (quoting In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2008)); TMEP §1202.03(a).
With respect to clothing, consumers may recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features, when located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt. See TMEP §1202.03(a). Consumers may not, however, perceive larger designs or slogans as trademarks when such matter is prominently displayed across the front of a t-shirt. See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at 1142; In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667-68 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii).
In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, THE, located directly on the upper-center area of the front of the shirt and the front portion of the hat, where ornamental elements often appear. See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b). Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size on the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods. As such, the applied-for mark appears to be used in a merely decorative manner that would be perceived by consumers as having little or no particular source-identifying significance.
Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others.
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of applicant’s clothing and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from others. Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1052, 1127; see In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (TTAB 2013); In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d 1141, 1142 (TTAB 1993); TMEP §§904.07(b), 1202.03 et seq.
The size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as used on the goods are all relevant factors in determining the commercial impression of the applied-for mark. See, e.g., In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1403 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1178 (TTAB 2013)); In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d at 1687 (quoting In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2008)); TMEP §1202.03(a).
With respect to clothing, consumers may recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features, when located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt. See TMEP §1202.03(a). Consumers may not, however, perceive larger designs or slogans as trademarks when such matter is prominently displayed across the front of a t-shirt. See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at 1142; In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667-68 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii).
In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, THE, located directly on the upper-center area of the front of the shirt and the front portion of the hat, where ornamental elements often appear. See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b). Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size on the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods. As such, the applied-for mark appears to be used in a merely decorative manner that would be perceived by consumers as having little or no particular source-identifying significance.
Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others.
So Tosu used too big a font. They used Pin-Chain size when they should’ve used keychain size. Typical.
Sounds like Pin Chain.
I didn’t realize Spencer was trying out with the Jets. Someone call compliance.
Someone in wrestling-osphere should give Ross a job.
