Talk:B-SAD

Use of the name "Belenenses"

To avoid more doubts about this case I will resume it here:
In 2018 the club "Belenenses" and his professional team "B" separated ways and the club denied B the use of his name and symbols. The team remained with the rights to play in the top division.
27th of November 2018 - The first court decided that the club has the right to deny B to use his symbols and name.
7th of March 2019 - The intermediate level court in Lisbon (Judicial Court) confirmed the decisions of the previous court.
11th of March 2019 - After the second decision against the use of the name and symbol the team created a new symbol and the brand "B".

25th of October 2019 - The Constitutional Court confirmed the decisions of the previous courts and denied B the use of the symbols and name of Belenenses. This decision is only provisional until the end of another and long process that is taking place since 2018 and the basics of this first trial was to avoid any damage that the use of the brands would create to the owner of it (club Belenenses).
21st of February 2021 - The first court decided in the main process that B can use the symbols and name. But this is only the first decision of the 3 courts and until the Constitutional Court decision about the process this is only a provisional decision and, according to the Portuguese law, the last decision of the Constitucional Court still prevails about the use of the name and symbols.

I think is very clear about the use of the name. This article should follow the Portuguese wiki and change the name to "B SAD". All the unnecessary uses of the name "Belenenses" should also change to "B" or "B SAD".
The Portuguese Federation refers to this team as B since the beginning of the 2020/21 season Jafdfm (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Serols: @SLBedit: @C.Fred: @RandomCanadian: @Zzuuzz: I will be waiting for aproval to change the article according to the detailed information and i also ask you to change the article name to "B SAD".Jafdfm (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

All relevant Wikipedia sisters 1 2 3 4 refer to this as the official website: Os Belenenses SAD. I can’t contribute more to the topic. --Serols (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The most relevant sister is the Portuguese sister. And if you read carefully the talk page of that sister you would notice that B tried to change the article name and his name on the article but was refused because of the arguments I presented here. Further more, presenting the website of the team can not be used as reference because it is biased. They are not following the courts decision and have already legal charges because of it. Considering you have not more to add to the discussion I will consider you accept the changes and apologize for your repeated reverts of the article. Kind regards :) Jafdfm (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jafdfm: I don't see anything that indicates acceptance of the changes. —C.Fred (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred I gave the reliable sources if nobody argue about that I assume that they accept it. Do you have any concern about any of the given sources? Jafdfm (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

My concern is that they should the common name of the club is still Belenenses SAD, even if there is a (temporary?) injunction against using the name. —C.Fred (talk) 18:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jafdfm: Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be named Belenenses SAD as a vast majority of the sources refer to it as such. Including the club's own website and Liga Portugal's match reports. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

League is ruled by the clubs and are not independent. The Federetaion is independent and calls it "B SAD". If you Google you will notice that the name is "B SAD" so your "common name" theory is not true. Besides that, we have to follow the law and the courts have decided that until the end of the trial thr team can not use this trademark (name and symbol). Look to the Portuguese wiki page. They changed the name to "B SAD" because it is the right thing to do. If you check the talk page of that article you will notice that B tried to argue that and revert. They were told to wait until the end of the trial, and if the final decision allows them to use the name they will change the name back. Do you know that the team did? They accept it and did not argue that. So, if the team accepts it in the Portuguese page why are we here arguing about "common names"? The law is still the law. Jafdfm (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

"If the team accepts it...." Do you mean at their osbelenensessad.com website where they call themselves "OS Beleneses, SAD"? —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

There was a discussion in the Portuguese wiki. In February of 2021 the team (B SAD) requested the change of the page and his name all around the article and was denied with the same arguments I presented here. They accepted it and the discussion ended. Link here: https://pt.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discuss%C3%A3o:B-SAD Jafdfm (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Most media currently (not 1 year ago or 6 months ago) uses Belenenses SAD, so its the common name. The court order or decisions should be in history section. This is no place for those private wars. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rpo.castro: I understand you arguments but we have to be unbiased here one team forbidden from using the name and symbol of another club. It's natural that because the team was born from the club that the process of disambiguation is long but we have to work towards that goal, not help the confusion. There are 2 separate clubs now and we have to respect that this club or team can not be named "Belenenses" to avoid confusions between the two of them. Also, in Portugal the Federation is the organization responsible for all football and them call this club "B SAD", so what is the doubt here? They saw the decisions and decided that they should not name them "Belenenses". Jafdfm (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Let's be serious here, I presented sources to validate the editions I propose and I only see here doubts about common names and press. Please avoid this kind of discussion and present valid sources or argue about my sources if you think court decisions are more valid then the press or the team not respecting those decisions. Jafdfm (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jafdfm: There is a policy issue here. WP:COMMONNAME says: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)...." So, the court decision is absolutely outweighed by the usage of the "wrong" name by the press and by the club. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: The policy of commonname is valid, but in my point of view there is a much more important policy the "common sense". If there is an injunction that prevents an entity from being confused with another in name and symbols, we cannot insist that nothing is changed just because it is the common name. Instead, we must follow credible sources such as the national federation of the country of the club. Jafdfm (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Besides which, this news article that you provided as a source does not mention any restrictions on using the name pending appeal. Instead, it says that the club may rightfully be known as Belenenses SAD. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Check this source
. I explained before that this decision is only by the first court and will subject to appeal to higher courts (as happened) and after the decision of the appeal they will also have the appeal to the Constitutional Court. Because of that, there was an injunction to avoid damages to the club by the use of the name and symbols from B. The Constitutional Court decision about the injuction is valid until the decision of the last appeal, since they did not decide this last appeal the injunction stands. Jafdfm (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't give a damn for the reason its called Belenenses SAD or B SAD. This is Wikipedia not a battleground. Official name is irrelevant. Name used by x organism is irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME matters above all your arguments. North Korea isn't their official name nor what they want to be called or international organizations use but its the common name. Like this there is so much more examples. About the name several questions can be made: is it common name, is it precise etc. If there is a court process ONGOING doesn't matter at all. Not for me nor WP. Rpo.castro (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rpo.castro: Let me just start by correcting you, there is no process ONGOING, the decision for stopping the use of the name to is finished since 2019 when the Constitutional Court decided in favor of Clube de Futebol os Belenenses . Until this court decides otherwise we have to follow this decision. The common name is not more important than the law. We can keep the error here or correct it. If you google it you will notice that google evolved and calls them B SAD . And let me point again that the commom name is ok when there is no court or entity saying that the commom name is using a registered trademark of another entity. What if Pepsi wants to change it's name to Coca Pepsi Cola, should we change the name or follow the natural decisions of the courts considering Coca-Cola is a registered trademark? Jafdfm (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be a lot easier discussion if you check my sources and point out if you disagree of any of my timeline or the sources. Because i spent a lot of time preparing that timeline and seems that nobody is checking it. Sorry, but if i am allowed to be honest here, i feel it like a bit of disrespectful. Jafdfm (talk) 22:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Here :

"Até que os tribunais superiores se pronunciem em termos definitivos sobre esta matéria, a BSAD mantém-se impedida de usar as marcas, os símbolos e o hino do Clube de Futebol «Os Belenenses», nos termos do procedimento cautelar transitado em julgado."
I think this should be enough to end the discussion right here. So, for the last time i ask you to see the bigger picture here. These two entities can not be confused with each other and if you keep this here you are collaborating to the mess. At least add this note to the article and i quit. It is impossible to argue with you because you are not arguing any of my sources. You are only pointing out a policy for commom name that should always be seen as a policy, not as a law, and here we have the law saing that we can not call this entity "Belenenses".Jafdfm (talk) 22:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet we have a ruling by a court saying it can be called Belenenses. I'm not sure if this is a language issue or WP:IDHT, but it seems abundantly clear to me that no change needs made to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

What law are you talking about? Any law suit against wikipedia? First of all if this process is not ongoing, well, there is no court processes on. Thats just BS. Second, what was the lawsuit filled by Belenenses club and against whom? Against all people? Even if Belenenses SAD is forbidden to use the name,logo etc, etc, case rested and cold, no one will be suited for calling them Belenenses (unless they (Belenenses SAD) felt that as an insult). Tricky thing, you can change the name and people might kept using the old one. Might even use one that doesn't make any sense, or never existed but for some reason it stucked. And yes, you can even call to a brand a different and rival brand. Years and years back ago iPod was a big thing. Of course other companies created several devices similar to iPod, but people would call it still "iPod", even from other brand. Creative was at one time, #1 on those devices. The Creative CEO when asked about people callimg his devices "iPod" he just said "as long as they keep buying". Of course Creative could advertise their new "iPod". But people could. And can. So if most people and most reliable sources call it Belenenses, for history it will recorded that people called them Belenenses. End of story. Now I am just hungry for some Pastéis de Belém bought just in a local pastery. Ah. I can't call them Pastéis de Belém. The pastery, can't. But, Yes we can. I rest my case in this personal (your) crusade. Rpo.castro (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred It is impossible to argue with you. How many times do I need to explain that this decision was appealed to a higher court and until this appeal (and the next one) is decided there is only one not appealeble decision. B SAD can not be confused with Belenenses. Now do whatever you want, it's impossible to argue with a wall and that's how i feel after explaining several times the same thing and you insisting with the same argument. Jafdfm (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jafdfm: Until you present a reliable source that shows that the injunction against using the name is still in effect during the appeals process. The sources you have presented show the opposite. —C.Fred (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Rpo.castro There are 2 processes. The first ended with the decision to stop all uses of the name "Belenenses" referring to this team. This process had only the point of stopping the uses quickly. The Portuguese Federation decided to follow that decision. But congratulations, it seems that you understand more about Portuguese football than the guys who rule it... The second on is ongoing and was only decided by the first court (out of 3) and naturally any decision in this process is appealeble. BTW, the most reliable source is still this one but you keep ignoring it... Jafdfm (talk) 08:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

References

@C.Fred Let's try again... Please read carefully the sources. They explain that while there was a decision allowing the use of the name the said decision is appealeble and while the appeal is ongoing the not appealeble decision forbidden the use of the name still stands. Source #1: https://www.osbelenenses.com/2021/02/informacao-aos-socios/ Source #2: https://www.abola.pt/nnh/2021-02-21/distritais-belenenses-vai-recorrer-da-decisao-do-tribunal-da-propriedade-intelect/879972 Here you have the confirmation from FPF: https://www.fpf.pt/pt/Clubes/Detalhe-de-clube/Club/580

Jafdfm (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jafdfm: Source #1 is from the other club in the incident and, because of the inherent bias, is not reliable.

Source #2 is the same statement. Press releases from a party to the suit are not reliable.

Source #3 is countered by the Liga Portugal website, which uses "Belenenses SAD" in the scores table[1] and its page for the club. [2]

Do any independent sources indicate that the temporary injunction is still in effect pending the appeal? —C.Fred (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred I quit. I gave the sources and the same sources are enough for the Portuguese wiki guys. But you think you know more than the Portuguese. Do whatever you want because I will not continue arguing with a wall Jafdfm (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this independent enough for you? https://www.pra.pt/pt/communication/news/os-belenenses-vs-b-sad-a-batalha-juridica-de-um-clube-historico/ Since it supports my thesis I bet you will argue that it is not good enough... Jafdfm (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jafdfm: I hate to say it, but.... I'd need to know who counsel is for OS Belenenses/the plaintiff before saying it's independent. Or, this analysis would need to be published in a journal, instead of in the form of an open letter on the firm's website. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Of course. The top of the irony is that the article itself is full of this kind of sources. I quit. Goobye Jafdfm (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If my sources are not reliable this is also not reliable: https://www.rtp.pt/noticias/1a-liga/tribunal-diz-que-belenenses-sad-pode-utilizar-nome-marcas-e-simbolos-do-clube_d1299082. Please remove the citation from the article and the part related to it because it only bases on one of the parts in this link, so it's obviously biased. Jafdfm (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

On the contrary, that is a reliable source, because the publisher is a news agency (Rádio e Televisão de Portugal). —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Wait, what? I gave one source from a newspaper (https://www.abola.pt/nnh/2021-02-21/distritais-belenenses-vai-recorrer-da-decisao-do-tribunal-da-propriedade-intelect/879972) and you refused it. As I told you before it's very odd that you accept every source reflecting the B side and reject everything about Belenenses side... Jafdfm (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've done a couple searches which show to me Belenenses is still the WP:COMMONNAME in English (several major stats/football sites all use Belenenses), and don't support changing anything right now. As the process continues we can review again if there's a clear change, but Wikipedia generally lags on changing the common name. SportingFlyer T·C 12:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Explanatory note about the common name

After reading this news story,[3] I feel convinced that, even though the common name is "Belenenses SAD", there is a legal issue surrounding use of the name. I'm proposing adding an explanatory note after the name where it is first mentioned in the introduction.

My proposed wording is this:

The club is commonly referred to, including by the media, as Belenenses SAD. The club has been involved in litigation with C.F. Os Belenenses since 2018, when a preliminary injunction was granted, forbidding the club from using the brands, symbols, anthem, and name they had used before the breakaway. The B-SAD name was created to comply with that ruling. In early 2021, the Court of Intellectual Property found in the club's favour, granting it use of the symbols. The initial injunction remains in effect while appeals take place.

References

This provides a clear explanation of the situation at the top of the article and reconciles the common name to the name used for legal compliance.

How is the wording? Any suggestions on it? —C.Fred (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

B SAD is the correct wording according to the ruler of the Portuguese football (Federação Portuguesa de Futebol) Jafdfm (talk) 19:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The news article uses "B-SAD". —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree you use that note in the introduction of the article and change every use in the article to B SAD for legal compliance Jafdfm (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

We do not need to change the article. We only need the explanatory note in the introduction. —C.Fred (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I support your proposal. I think its very clear to explain whats happening so anyone (and I mean anyone, not just people really into portuguese football and inside this situation) clearly understands the situation.Rpo.castro (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. If You decided you only need a note I think you sould change one part to something like this: "The trial about the use of the name and symbols was decided in early 2021 and the Court of Intellectual Property decided in the club's favour. This decision was appealed by C. F. Os Belenenses to "Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa". The initial injunction remains in effect while appeals take place and the club will continue to use the alternative symbol." I would also add that this club changed his symbol in 2019 related to this process (BTW, the club did not change the symbol back after this year decision, proving it is true what my sources stated...) Jafdfm (talk) 23:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred How is the "Explanatory note" going? Jafdfm (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: It is abusive to claim that my edit was against the talk. I waited 32 days for your explanatory note. I even asked how it was going. You did nothing so i edited myself. I am glad you finally did the note. Jafdfm (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)