Fabrizio Romano, ‘There We Land’ and the snatching of gimmicks – can trademark law protect innovators appropriately?

Slogans identify a brand. It is a key marketing tool. It’s what innovators strive for. The right slogan can signify worldwide recognition.

When you think of groundbreaking transfer news, you think of Fabrizio Romano. He has become synonymous with football transfers. His iconic catchphrase, ‘HERE WE GO’ to confirm officially that a player has moved to a club, is recognised all around the globe. He is universally loved on social media and his power on football lovers cannot be understated.

Here We Go is his slogan, which does not happen to be trademarked, or rather registered as a trademark in the UK database or Intellectual Property Office.

A slogan should be trademarked to protect its originality, ensuring that the owner of the slogan can reap any rewards that come from it, and also so as not to confuse consumers/listeners in choosing or believing an inferior or different product/service.

Winner T Shipa, a young British boy, has made headlines on social media recently with his use of the slogan ‘there we land’. He says this slogan in the same intonation as Fabrizio, with the same pauses. He is also a bearer of transfer news, so much so that his use of the slogan has gained him 10 million plus views on tik tok, even causing Adidas and other premier league clubs to use the slogan and tag him.

Now, you may be wondering why I raise this as a concern, and what the issue is.

The situation has now become a meme. ‘There we Land’, ‘here we advance’ and ‘here we skedaddle’ are just a few examples of the way in which Fabrizio’s slogan is being manipulated and utilised to the benefit of others. The issue isn’t necessarily in the words, it is in the tone. The intonation, the way in which Fabrizio says this slogan, with the pause, is what gives it its distinctiveness, I would argue.

Trademarks must be distinctive, acquired through use, and must not purely be descriptive. Fabrizio has used this for more than 4 years now, in each transfer window, to millions of followers, this has clearly been enough to make it distinct.

If we saw it written down, we would know how its pronounced and spoken. This is the issue – trademark law protects only graphological marks; those that are capable of being written down. British trademark law is not modern enough to incorporate the nuances of a trademark, which go further than just its spelling.

The reason that trademark law cannot protect Fabrizio in this regard is twofold,

• He has not trademarked the phrase. This is the key reason why the trademark system is in place. To protect originality and to ensure others cannot use similar phrases or terminology if already trademarked.
• Like the infamous Colin the Caterpillar vs Cuthbert the Caterpillar dispute between Marks and Spencer’s and Aldi, the phrase that has been infringed on must be identical or similar to the registered mark, promoting services or goods that are identical or similar to those sold by the registered trademark owner, and improper use of such could confuse the average consumer. Now here, its clear that the phrase is similar, but not identical. It is used to promote the exact same service as Fabrizio, the transfer of footballers, however it would fail at the last stage: it would not confuse the average listener into thinking that this child’s brand is the same as Fabrizio Romano’s.

So what redress could Fabrizio have? Does he have any recourse?

The first step I would recommend is that Fabrizio trademark the slogan. The benefit he would get is that it prevents someone else from using any likeness of his slogan. It is then in the public record. It might not be allowed to be trademarked because it is not original enough and is identical to existing trademarks, however it is in a different market and promotes a different service, so could be accepted in that regard. ‘Here we go’ is trademarked by another brand, ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, a German Brewer. This is a different market.

The issue I would suggest that remains is that Fabrizio’s slogan is being manipulated due to his phrase being mimicked in its tone, the speed in which he says it, and the anticipation needed by the viewer when Fabrizio is concluding the specific transfer news. Fabrizio would have better help looking towards copyright law as a result to help him; as seen in the music world, lyrics and songs can be copied and thus redress can be sought under copyright law for infringement.

The test under copyright infringement would provide Fabrizio with a potential legal action and recourse that trademark law would not be able to provide:

• He must prove that the infringer had access his work – evidence can be adduced by seeing if the boy follows him on social media, whether he has interacted with any of Fabrizio’s posts etc;
• He must prove that he has been copied. There are different tests to identify similarity. The posts of the TikToker are near identical. It is doubtful that anyone could conclude that Fabrizio’s style, language and intonation has not been copied in this regard.

None of the memes will have taken much away from Fabrizio, this has all been some light-hearted fun and I have no doubt that Fabrizio would love the impact that he has had on the youth of today to focus on the highs and excitement of football transfers. It has really piqued my interest seeing all the memes and I thought I would comment, IP law is meant to protect innovators and creators, and not allow shoddy likenesses to gain thousands of followers off the back of these inventors.