History Repeats: But the Liver Birds belong to the city

In simple terms Liverpool FC tried to claim ownership over a symbol that the city of Liverpool has used since and arguably before 1797, the date it was first granted within the cities coat of arms. The birds are something that people for miles around look up to when they visit the city. Something that the city has had in its assciation for many of generations.

To add to the Red's sheer audacity and to be honest it has to be said - down right cheek this application would seem to be yet another slap in the face of Merseyside football history. Shameful given Platini's comments regarding Liverpool being one of the best football cities in Europe given its history.

Liverpool is a two club city. And despite all the money in football and the way football is run by the media, Everton are an enormously important part of Liverpool and beyond. But something history shows is that fortunes are cyclical, and because one team does well for a period should not mean an attempt to stand on the other should be tollerated.

Its more of yet another slap in the face to Evertonians, given Everton football club's parental heritage over our rivals and that this actually goes back to before the sundering of the two clubs over the infamous "rent issue" of Anfield.

Below is a well distributed photo of a "medal from 1890-91 , a silver gold and blue enamel medal struck during the season when a breakaway happened the following season leading to the foundation of Liverpool FC".

It clearly shows the historical usage of the Liver Birds by Everton FC prior to the breakaway - so effectively by both clubs.

Its also historically ironic given John Houlding's attempt to call his break away team "Everton" before the English FA rejected it.

These seem like trivial matters, but in a media culture where one club seems to get preferential coverage as an Evertonian, and with a supporter base who sing about "knowing their history" you can imagine the outrage of Evertonian's, to what looks like monopolisation of a socially and historically important symbol of pride?

Whomever is advising the Americans at Anfield really needs to take a lesson in CULTURAL SENSITIVITY.

Luckily, due to the history and due to the process adopted by the UK Interlectual Property Office with whom I've had the opportunity to study, there is absolutely no way any attoney could grant such a Trademark without substantial legal challenge with much freely available historical/social evidence to suggest a trademark could not be granted.
Even as a matter of process, there is plenty of evidence to say that they could trademark "their own" representation but not all representations.

Effectively Everton FC, is and should be free to incorporate a Liver Bird onto future Everton shirts should Everton because the historical precedent for doing so in a football context is EFC's.

However, I doubt Everton FC would object to our neighbours using the design. Possibly due to better cultural sensitivity in the blue half?
As a club the blues were very reluctant to adopt any design/symbol until relatively recently, in the 20th century.

Prince Rupert Tower is one symbol for Everton, worn on the right breast, but for any Evertonian the left breast would be reserved for the Liver Bird.
On that we can be all 100% certain.

Given the reported outcry, and given the Red's climbdown its apparent that their legal advisors would have warned them how likely and how easily their case could have been picked apart by the reported likely challenge by the City Council.
It still doesn't hide how much Evertonians would have been seething if yet another iconic part of our history were lost in a "snatch and grab raid by the neighbours".

The birds belong to the city.