PART 2: Hall-Nash Discussion
nWo History – Part 2
There is no doubt that WCW attempted to insinuate as part of its angle with Hall and Nash that both were still with the WWF.
They knew they wouldn’t be able to get away with it for long, but they hoped fans would infer from their early clues that they were going to see interpromotional matches.
Is that on its own illegal? Maybe.
Would the WWF have filed a lawsuit against WCW had Hall kept his Hispanic accent if WCW had immediately given him a new name and new outfit? Not necessarily.
But combine Hall’s border-line flaunting of the Ramon characteristics with the insinuations that he and Nash were representing the WWF, and the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Especially so when you consider the rest of the case the WWF builds in its lawsuit regarding the level of competition between the groups in the last year.
I don’t blame the WWF one bit for suing.
And I think they have a strong moral case.
I can’t speak to the details of the law.
I do know that just because 28 of 41 wrestlers who have jumped have kept the same name doesn’t make this use of the trademarked personas legal.
The WWF did overstate their case, which either gives them negotiating room in court to concede a few points but hold to the most important ones, or it costs them credibility in the courtroom.
Lawyers, it seems, usually go for the former because they feel their in-court brilliance will prevent the latter.
In any case, the WWF is accusing WCW of stealing the Diesel persona when nothing of the sort has occurred.
The WWF did get a bit excessive in their description of what they feel is trademarked (sunglasses? toothpick in mouth?) especially when many are characteristics Hall and Nash had in their last WCW stint.
Where WCW hurts themselves is in not giving Nash and Hall names yet.
Why not ask them what their names are?
The only possible explanation for why they haven’t given them names yet is they want fans to think of them only as “Bad Guy” Razor Ramon and “Big Daddy Cool” Diesel.
If they call them Scott Hall and Kevin Nash, the illusion is diminished.
If Hall and Nash are merely “outsiders” attempting a hostile takeover, why not give them new names.
The answer is because WCW is disingenuous in saying they aren’t trying to capitalize on fans inferring, due to their ongoing hints and suggestions, that Hall and Nash are representing the WWF – even if Hall and Nash won’t admit it.
In retrospect, the Hall-Nash angle would have been better had it gone the route Pillman has gone in the WWF.
Nash and Hall could have had a high-profile contract signing, fighting back tears because they were returning to the place where they first gained national fame.
Then, after the deals were signed, they could have turned on WCW, just as Pillman turned on the WWF.
They could have said they were there for a “hostile takeover” and challenged WCW’s best.
And they could have declared new identities.
That angle would have lost the edge of the “inter-promotional insinuation,” yet considering that insinuation (or exclamation on WCW’s 900 line) is unfair to the WWF (if not illegal), it probably shouldn’t have been done that way.
The WWF asked for some radical retribution, including all profits derived from the “fraudulent portrayal” of Hall and Nash representing the WWF.
I don’t disagree they deserve that, but how does WCW figure that out?
What percentage of advertising profits and pay-per-view revenue?
What about abstract goodwill? Tough to gauge.
I admire the WWF attorneys for asking for WCW to have to apologize on the air and advertise Raw.
You know they added that, not expecting it, but relishing the outside chance of it happening if they received a sympathetic judge.
They did lose credibility when quoting a 900 report which said Hall and Nash were “from the other organization.”
The WWF later said the 900 report claimed they were “with the other organization.”
Very big difference. To get caught trying to slip that by a judge can’t help their credibility in the courtroom.
As part of the mid-July hearing the judge asked that all primary parties be present, including Eric Bischoff and Vince McMahon .
Watching for their first eye contact in court will be as fascinating as watching Hogan testify in front of McMahon at his 1993 trial.
