UPDATED: Back of scoreboard - Maize M looks a-go
From 9:45 this morning, I took these on my morning run. Drove by 20 minutes ago and looks the same...
It might be hard to see, but that maize strip on the bottom ends before the panel ends, so that is the width of the foot the the block M.
If I'm not too busy, I'll update here in the afternoon. When I drove by around 10:50 they had another blue piece hanging from a crane. Watching paint dry has never been so fun.
EDIT: About 5:20pm on Thursday:
And here's a shot of the almost completed Elbel Field Band Practice field, now turfed:
Can't wait to see it in person when I come in for the SDSU game.
Is it just me, or does that look more "gold" than maize?
It was overcast and kinda dark. Also, it was a camera phone. It is not as dark as it looks in these pictures - it's solidly maize.
I think I read a while back that Nike has a patent on "maize" so we haven't actually even worn it for a while now.
I don't think we can honestly say that any of our current uniforms have this color.
"Nike has a patent on Maize.".
That is infuriating.
I don't think that's correct. You wouldn't patent a color. You might be able to get a trademark for a color, but even that seems unlikely in this instance. I'll do a little digging and report back.
You can't patent it, but you can trademark it I believe. I think I have said before that Nike holds a patent on the color, but I really meant a trademark.
My business law class did teach us about one such case, can't remember the product, but it was some green color that was synonymous with one brand and a court determined it could not be used by a competitor...
The best known example is probably pink Dow Corning fiberglass insulation.
The case you're referring to set the precedent in the US. It was Qualitex v. Jacobson, which made it to the Supreme Court (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualitex_Co._v._Jacobson_Products_Co.,_Inc.).
For the record, I think it's unlikely that Nike has trademarked Maize.
For instance, I did not know that permissible citation form on MGoBlog allowed citation to a Wikipedia link, as opposed to Westlaw, Lexis, or the official reports at ___ U.S. ___.
Seriously, I agree. If Nike has trademarked "Maize," it is not a color, but a name only, and there only in connection with a limited range of products. As anybody who gets six catalogs a day from Orvis, Jos. A. Bank, Brooks Brothers and Patagonia knows, there are people whose full time jobs are to dream up names for colors. And if adidas uses "Sun" as a color name, it is no different from "Eggplant," "Sage," "Coffee Bean," "Midnight," or "Kumquat."
I know you were just kidding, but for the record I'm not a lawyer. Also in the spirit of full disclosure, I got my Cornings crossed in my previous post. It's Owens, not Dow.
Pink for insulation is a very popular example of trademark protection. Another is "canary yellow" for post-it notes made by 3M. Qualitex was for a shade of green, I believe, as applied to press-machines or ironing-boards for cleaning clothing/apparel.
I checked the USPTO (I'm a lawyer, but you don't have to be an atty to do so):
There is no "maize" TM that applies here.
"Maize Rage" is a registered TM (owned by the University)
"Michigan Man" is a registered TM (owned by a guy from PA)
"Michigan" (for apparel) is a registered TM (owned by the University)
The shitty "line M" is a registered TM (owned by the University)
etc. etc. etc.
is "Michigan Man" really a trademark?!
Yes.
Sorry, it seems the links don't work but the TESS system is really easy for searching marks. Just go to this site: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4010:5t8kc7.1.1 and you'll be able to search for anything you'd like. It's somewhat self-explanatory, but you'll be able to see the type of use, dates, whether live/dead, owner, etc.
" Michigan Man"
So, you can trademark anything that hasn't already been trademarked?
So if "buckeyes" hasn't already been trademarked, you could do it?
Not really. Think of it as "registering" a mark. Registering gives you certain advantages (presumption of knowledge and whatnot) over not registering, but you don't have to register a mark for it to exist and to have common law rights in your mark. You can also register a mark for certain uses (say "Skunk Bear" for a brand of tobacco in Michigan) even if there already exists another registration for "Skunk Bear" for an airline in Alaska. Fun stuff, eh?
is also protected by trademark law for Michigan, I'm pretty sure. It's probably under trade dress specifically. I think one argument against protecting it was that it had a functional use (functional aspects of a logo/design are generally not protectable under TM law), b/c it made it easier for the QB to see receivers down field.
Block M, Helmet, etc... can not be used without permission from UofM.
Looks like we have some copyright infringement with some avatars here on the board...
Do we have some kind of understanding with Missouri about the Block M? They certainly use it (in similar colors, too).
Jay-Z Blue?
UPS has the color brown trademarked. Look it up. Such trademarks only apply to competing businesses, though. (Example: Fed-Ex can't decide to paint all of their trucks brown.) Thus, I think it's entirely feasible that Nike trademarked maize... And this trademark would mean that Adidas can't call the shade of yellow they put on our uniforms maize.
It's all pointless technicality, since a Nike trademark can't stop a school from wearing its colors.
Great job on using both in one post.
I've never seen precedent for patenting a color, I can't imagine it would fly. Trademarking, on the other hand, is often used to protect colors. In this specific example, I can tell you that Michigan does have a trademark on the colors Maize and Blue, a fact verified during the Budweiser dust-up of 2009:
http://www.michigandaily.com/files/Frank%20Hellwig%20072209.pdf
Nike's version is, in fact, trademarked and what we have been wearing since Adidas took over is actually called "Sun"
in a color is a rarity relative to other designs protected by trademarks.
I'd heard that too (something related to new uniforms to one of the women's teams), and was just as outraged, considering that maize (and Michigan's maize) existed long before Nike came on the scene. And left, ostensibly taking its stolen toys with them. Look forward to hearing it's nonsense.
EDIT: Obviously posted before reading the posts below.
...keeps appearing here.
You don't "patent" colors. I don't even think you can "copyright" or "trademark" colors. But you can trademark colors, when combined with other trade-mark features.
Anwyay, I'm sorry if this seems to be picking on you, but I've posted this many tmies before; the simple fact is that Michigan's "maize" has been evolving, gradually, ever since we donned winged helmets. From a dusky wheat color, to our current highlighter-brite. A more or less constant, gradual shift to brighter brightness.
It has nothing to do with Nike versus adidas. N-o-t-h-i-n-g.
Interesting, for purposes of this thread, is that in much of color photography, Michigan's maize tended to look a lot duller than in person. It is true on television too. I've never aksed Bruce Madej about it, but I think that has been the prime motivator in bright-bright maize on our uniforms; when shown on television or in much of color photography, the color shift tends to make it a similar pantone to what appears on color print as our more traditional "maize," i.e. the Block M on University stationery.
Now, back to topic. That is going to be one big Block M on that scoreboard!
a color or color scheme can be protected under trademark (which also encompasses trade dress) law. I work in IP litigation and have come across this principle of law before and somewhat recently.
As others have said, its not patent law specifically. It would technically be an intellectual property called "Trade Dress", part of the Lanham Act which also govenrs trademark law. To officially register it though, you would go through the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO, so that may be where the confusion originates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress
Years back I participated in securing trade dress protection for a company I was working for. We secured our color combination in a specific industry. Trade dress usually applies to aestheic properties of something that stand for your brand, but not as outright obvious like a symbol or logo. You can trade dress your colors, the shape of your product (I believe VW tried to get trade dress protection for the shape of the Beetle), and Harley Davidson even tried to get trade dress protection for the sound its bikes make (they failed if I remember right).
Its a segment of intellectual property that is often underused in business. A good way to protect whats yours, and protect your differientiation.
Nike has a color called "Varsity Maize."
I do not beleive it is possible to pattent a color. It might be possible to trademark a color but I doubt it.
I don't know about patenting colors, but Nike definitely has the market cornered on hideous Oregon unis.
What happens when Phil Knight isn't head of Nike anymore? Will Oregon continue getting cushy deals from its "corporate sponsor," as it effectively is today? Not to mention the effect of Will Lyles spilling his guts.
August 1st, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
I'm sure Knight will donate the use of his defense team for the hearing with the NCAA. He'll do anything to keep his team from serious sanctions. Oregon's rise to national prominence is probably the cheapest marketing campaign Nike has had. What do a few hundred uniforms a year and remodeling some facilities cost compared to paying for their ad campaigns over the years. Plus it's all tax deductible.
To me it looks like the traditional "maize" (whatever that means). The neon yellow vibe of the student shirts wasn't in use back in my day (the late 1800's).
You have been conditioned to believe maize = hilighter yellow
Maize should be the color of a ripe cob of corn that is freshly harvested.
I dunno, that's a pretty pale color until it's cooked.
The real problem? Now I am really hungry for some sweet corn, with no prospects for getting any for the next six hours or more.
Excellent work! Thanks for the update. One would think that we would have more pressing concerns (debt ceiling, peace on earth, famine, war)...but one would be incorrect. Very happy to see the simple Block M on the board!
I just hope it's a straight block M and not the split M with the lettering through it.
EDIT: I imagine we would already see some of the lettering hanging off the right side if that were the case, so that's a good sign.
http://www.logos.umich.edu/usemarks.html
PLEASE NOTE: The “split block M”—the version that has the word Michigan written across the M—is offered as an alternative here only because it was registered and in use prior to these guidelines. It should be used sparingly and only in settings where we need to graphically distinguish ourselves from another university that uses some form of an "M" as their logo, such as the University of Minnesota. This version of the Block M should not be used as a department logo, or on print pieces or web banners created in the future.
I think it would have to be a clean Block M and nothing through it. Aug of last year, Dave Brandon and Bruce Madej from the Athletic Dept all said that there is an effort to have a more consistent look to the logo and a yellow Block M.
Good photos - these also really put the size of the board into perspective.
With the stairwells in the middle, you can see the screens are a good four stories tall.
I'm just jealous your morning run takes you past the big house
My thoughts exactly!
All of my runs used to do the same... but now I am in exile, and have actually seen this fucking thing (linked instead of embedded to give everyone a chance to avoid seeing it) on a morning run during football season.