OT: USC vs USC trademark lawsuit

27 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
January 21st, 2010 at 6:52 PM
#1
formerlyanonymous
formerlyanonymous's picture
Joined: 06/30/2008
MGoPoints: 13958
OT: USC vs USC trademark lawsuit

A federal circuit court upheld a lower court ruling between Southern Cal and South Carolina today. The courts ruled in favor of Southern Cal owning the rights to any interlocking SC hats, regardless of color or even shape apparently.

That middle hat is also considered infringing upon the SC brand from my understanding. South Carolina will wear it this season despite that infringement, but they will not be able to make any royalties from the sell of said hat. The South Carolina hat has only been around campus a few years now. Previously, they used a gamecock hat, logo below:

I love how the Southern Cal attorney got another jab in at the end of the article, emphasis mine:

Scott Edelman, an attorney representing the Los Angeles university, hailed the ruling as protection of the school's "primary athletic mark" used on team clothing and equipment that brings in significant revenue. Sports logo registrations are not limited to use in team colors, so there was potential for South Carolina merchandise to be mistaken for that of USC, Edelman said.

He also suggested that the letters were more deservedly linked to the Trojans' warrior image than to "a goofy little chicken."

This seems totally ridiculous to me, but it also reminds me of the lawsuit Wisconsin had a few years ago with a high school team.

(HT: Kendall Rogers)

MGoPosts|MGoDiaries|Twitter|Email

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
January 21st, 2010 at 6:57 PM | About the goofy little chicken... (Score:1)
MGauxBleu
MGauxBleu's picture
Joined: 05/08/2009
MGoPoints: 1654

I watched the PapaJohns.com bowl with my brother-in-law and six-year-old nephew. They had a pretty interesting debate regarding the South Carolina mascot. It was decided that a game cock was in fact half-dragon/half-chicken.

You have to admit, it is a fierce looking chicken.

—Never Forget guy

January 21st, 2010 at 7:16 PM | The debate I'd be interested in is (Score:1)
SonoAzzurro
SonoAzzurro's picture
Joined: 01/13/2009
MGoPoints: 24

but does it taste delicious?

January 21st, 2010 at 10:49 PM | "They had a pretty (Score:1)
Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks's picture
Joined: 09/06/2008
MGoPoints: 3457

"They had a pretty interesting debate regarding the South Carolina mascot. It was decided that a game cock was in fact half-dragon/half-chicken."

I'm pretty sure that they opted for the more "PC" (read: inaccurate) interpretation as to what it is.

January 22nd, 2010 at 1:14 AM | This was a federal circuit decision (Score:1)
rdlwolverine
Joined: 09/28/2008
MGoPoints: 267

so any appeal would have to be to the Supremes.

January 22nd, 2010 at 2:05 AM | No, they can appeal for a (Score:1)
Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks's picture
Joined: 09/06/2008
MGoPoints: 3457

No, they can appeal for a rehearing en banc at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

January 21st, 2010 at 7:10 PM | This is almost like UofM (Score:1)
BlueRaines
BlueRaines's picture
Joined: 12/10/2009
MGoPoints: 492

This is almost like UofM suing Clarkston high school/Delaware/Princeton for using the winged helmets.... or Marshall for using block M.

Go Baby Go

January 21st, 2010 at 8:02 PM | As an IP attorney, while (Score:1)
bluebyyou
Joined: 09/07/2009
MGoPoints: 2683

As an IP attorney, while these things may seem trivial, failing to enforce your mark dilutes the value of the trademark. Two well known examples are "Xerox" and "Kleenex", often used to describe the general act of making a copy or a generic tissue, but in actuality representing products from Xerox Corp. and Kimberly-Clark.

No way in hell should Michigan ever back off from protecting that winged helmet and that block M.

January 21st, 2010 at 9:53 PM | Honestly, I don't understand a lot of this. (Score:1)
Section 1
Section 1's picture
Joined: 06/29/2009
MGoPoints: 14314

Should Michigan have sued the Milwaukee Brewers, circa 1970-77?

http://www.sportsunlimitedinc.com/cooperstown-milwaukee-brewers-70-77-ad...

What about the Missouri Tigers?

http://www.lids.com/pid/20104553

Or, the Marshall Thundering Herd?

http://www.footballfanatics.com/COLLEGE_Marshall_Thundering_Herd_Hats/To...

Then there are, as already mentioned, the football helmets of Delaware, Princeton and 100 other shcools including Saline and Clarkston highs schools, right?

Is there an intellectual property difference between the Brooklyn Dodgers:

http://www.sportsauthority.com/product/index.jsp?productId=1881546&CAWEL...

And the Boston Red Sox?

http://store.nike.com/index.jsp?country=US&lang_locale=en_US&cp=usns_CSE...

 

 

January 21st, 2010 at 11:09 PM | Yeah, that's exactly my (Score:1)
Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks's picture
Joined: 09/06/2008
MGoPoints: 3457

Yeah, that's exactly my point. I know that in some cases those are in fact trademarked and the team lets another use it (e.g. the Packers and Georgia), but that's not typically the case. This is a really bad decision. My guess is that they just had a poor panel and that this will either be reheard en banc or appealed to SCOTUS.

January 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 AM | You would need to review the (Score:1)
bluebyyou
Joined: 09/07/2009
MGoPoints: 2683

You would need to review the trademarks and see the goods which are covered. Some of this stuff gets fairly complex. In the case of the Brooklyn Dodgers vs the Red Sox, the colors may well come into play. There is no mistaking that big red "B" for the Red Sox.

January 22nd, 2010 at 12:51 AM | That doesn't really apply (Score:1)
Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks's picture
Joined: 09/06/2008
MGoPoints: 3457

That doesn't really apply here though, as the colors are just as different as the examples that he cited. There's no mistaking anywhere in the southeast that the SC for South Carolina is South Carolina and not Southern California, whereas the opposite is true out west.

January 21st, 2010 at 11:06 PM | I have a feeling USC will (Score:1)
Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks's picture
Joined: 09/06/2008
MGoPoints: 3457

I have a feeling USC will appeal this ruling. That representation (i.e. "SC") is all over this state and has been for a long time. I would have to venture a guess that it'll piss a lot of people here off if they don't try to protect their rights to it. From a legal perspective, I think the Federal Circuit blew this one, although I can't be sure without reading the opinion. This ruling doesn't make any sense from an application standpoint as the two logos aren't any more similar than any other interlocking letters that are common used in practice (e.g. "LA", "SF", "NY", etc.). I would venture a guess that on that basis alone this decision will be overturned. However, it's even more egregious when you consider that the letters are the actual and official designation for the state of South Carolina. Looks like I might have to start writing "South Carolina" after my address instead of "SC" lest some moron think that my mail should go to Southern California.

January 22nd, 2010 at 12:01 AM | Legit question from an IP (Score:1)
Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks's picture
Joined: 09/06/2008
MGoPoints: 3457

Legit question from an IP standpoint (since I'm not an IP attorney): does it matter whatsoever that Southern California's website is www.usc.edu and South Carolina's is www.sc.edu? I mean, again, it seems like another very good example of the fact that "SC" is South Carolina, not Southern California.

January 21st, 2010 at 9:01 PM | I went to Clarkston for a (Score:1)
rtyler
rtyler's picture
Joined: 10/28/2009
MGoPoints: 431

I went to Clarkston for a couple of years. It seemed pretty obvious that they were capitalizing on U of M fame with their colors, helmets, and nickname (the "Wolves") but I just kind of assumed that high schools were allowed to do that because they are essentially paying homage to a famed institution. IIRC the Clarkston Middle School teams were called the "Wolverines" and also used maize and blue and perhaps even winged helmets, but I don't remember. When was the lawsuit? What was the outcome?

January 22nd, 2010 at 10:17 AM | I went to Hartland High (Score:1)
gomaize11
gomaize11's picture
Joined: 09/02/2009
MGoPoints: 290

I went to Hartland High School and we were basically U of M Jr too. Same uni's, exact same helmets, same block yellow letter (only an H), even the same fight song with "Hartland" substituted for "Michigan."

January 21st, 2010 at 7:10 PM | There is a USC on the West (Score:1)
mgowin
Joined: 03/03/2009
MGoPoints: 2325

There is a USC on the West Coast now? Damn Manifest Destiny...

January 21st, 2010 at 7:52 PM | usC to shining usC? (Score:1)
gomaize11
gomaize11's picture
Joined: 09/02/2009
MGoPoints: 290

usC to shining usC?

January 21st, 2010 at 7:24 PM | goofy little chicken? (Score:1)
clarkiefromcanada
clarkiefromcanada's picture
Joined: 11/21/2008
MGoPoints: 13008

Heh!

No way, Not Cocky!

If the haters don't hate you then you're doing something wrong. - David Cone

January 21st, 2010 at 8:01 PM | That's a crap ruling. (Score:1)
MaizeAndBlueWahoo
MaizeAndBlueWahoo's picture
Joined: 07/02/2008
MGoPoints: 11821

That's a crap ruling. Besides, according to sportslogos.net (have no idea how legit that source is but don't know how to find out otherwise) Southern Cal has been using their logo since 1992; South Carolina since 1983; and Santa Clara since 1978. If anyone has no standing it ought to be Southern Cal.

"We've beaten Michigan the last four years.  So where's the threat?"

- Mark Dantonio

Blogging the Virginia Cavaliers at http://fromoldvirginia.blogspot.com/<

January 21st, 2010 at 8:55 PM | Never a bad time to say (Score:1)
WolvinLA2
WolvinLA2's picture
Joined: 11/13/2009
MGoPoints: 17705

Fuck USC.

January 21st, 2010 at 9:55 PM | And never a bad time for another MGoPoint. (Score:1)
Section 1
Section 1's picture
Joined: 06/29/2009
MGoPoints: 14314

+1 for you sir, and thank you for sharing!

 

 

January 21st, 2010 at 10:19 PM | Wisconsin Loves to Sue (Score:1)
Scott Dreisbach
Joined: 06/30/2009
MGoPoints: 101

I had a friend from Waukee, Iowa who said that their high school was being sued by Wisconsin because of their use of a W that resembled the W from the Wisconsin helmet. I thought that was the most outrageous thing I have ever heard. I looked it up, and sure enough, the University of Wisconsin threatened to sue little Waukee High school over a W as a logo. On top of that, I guess they tried suing Washburn University for it. Its pretty pathetic. I put a link below for the details.

http://www.vegastrademarkattorney.com/2007/12/university-of-wisconsin-fi...

January 22nd, 2010 at 1:16 AM | Badgers probably had no choice (Score:1)
rdlwolverine
Joined: 09/28/2008
MGoPoints: 267

The problem is that if they turn the other cheek and not do anything, they can lose right to enforce the trademark against everybody. A lot of times I believe they negotiate a settlement where the HS might pay a small fee for a license to use the trademark and then they can still have protection against other unauthorized users.

January 21st, 2010 at 11:27 PM | The middle hat is more (Score:1)
buck1973
Joined: 07/31/2009
MGoPoints: 21

The middle hat is more similar to the Southern Cal baseball team hat than the hat to its left:

January 22nd, 2010 at 12:02 AM | That's a much better (Score:1)
Clarence Beeks
Clarence Beeks's picture
Joined: 09/06/2008
MGoPoints: 3457

That's a much better representation that explains the dispute. However, the decision seems to be incredibly over-reaching as it would give Southern California all interlocking "SC" logos.

January 21st, 2010 at 11:35 PM | Shouldn't the headline on this thread be (Score:1)
rdlwolverine
Joined: 09/28/2008
MGoPoints: 267

Trojans block 'cocks.

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.