national champs baby
Schools dropping/suing Adidas
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:47 AM
#1
Schools dropping/suing Adidas
I read this article a couple weeks ago and never saw anything about it posted. After reading Brian's uniform complaints and the comments that followed, I figured it should be brought up. It seems Adidas owes factory workers in Asia a few million dollars and Universities are starting to take notice. Washington and Rutgers, who's major sports are with Nike, have dropped Adidas who supply some of their smaller sports. Cornell also has recently dropped Adidas. But the biggest school/contract doing something is Wisconsin. They're actually suing Adidas. Who knows how big this will get or if Michigan will take any action. Unlikely I think, since the contract is worth so much, but hopefully it pushes them away from Adidas when the contract is up in 3 years.
http://badgerherald.com/oped/2012/09/17/uw_admin_on_right_tr.php
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:17 AM | 
One word. Nike.
One word. Nike.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:41 AM |
I hope they go back to Nike
I hope they go back to Nike
I hope they go back to Nike just because I hate the neon maize hockey and basketball jerseys
"Ohio is like a giant turd that Michigan just can't pinch off"
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:29 AM |
So you don't think Nike, the
So you don't think Nike, the
So you don't think Nike, the creator of The Oregon Ducks uniforms, wouldn't push a brighter yellow for maize? Grass is always greener....
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:48 AM |
Well I'm probably wrong, but
Well I'm probably wrong, but
Well I'm probably wrong, but doesn't Nike have a trademark on the exact Michigan color, which forced Adidas to go with a color called "highlighter"?
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:59 AM |
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:08 AM |
Huh?
Huh?
How is this possible? I can't imagine Nike owning a trademark on a color -- much less a color of a brand (or the associated goodwill) that they don't even own. Link?
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:35 AM |
I don't know if Nike owns a
I don't know if Nike owns a
I don't know if Nike owns a "color" but have you ever heard of trade dress, which is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.
I represented a client some years ago who obtained protection for lime green packaging for a product it produced.
Here is a Wiki link if you are interested:
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:28 AM |
For God's sake
For God's sake
you cannot trademark a color. Does Nike get a cut of the "Legal Pad" writing paper that I am using right now due to its sheer yellowness? And how close does the yellow have to be to be in Nike's "territory." I think Crayola would be all over Nike's ass if that is the case.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:36 AM |
And even if you could
And even if you could
And even if you could trademark a color, what kind of a colossal failure would it be on U-M's part to allow one of their colors to be appropriated by an apparel company?
"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 3rd, 2013 at 10:49 AM |
Nike also deveoped and owns
Nike also deveoped and owns
Nike also developed and owns Texas' "burnt orange." They're the only company that can legally use that name too.
You CAN trademark colors.
http://www.mbbp.com/resources/iptech/non-traditional_trademarks.html
"That's tremendous, Jim."
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:52 AM |
They
They
may own the term but they do not own the color. Unless you literally invented a new color, one that could not properly be accounted for by the alteration or blending of previously existing colors, like invented something previously never even considered in the wonderful and endless world of colors, you cannot have exclusive right to the use of it. The very fact that the word orange is in that term means that the color itself is fair game for anybody they want to use it. Just call it "rustic orange" or "western orange" and your good. Nike does not own Maizish-Yellow. Michigan does not own Maizish-Yellow. Maizish-Yellow is its own boss.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:09 AM |
Apparently you didn't read
Apparently you didn't read
Apparently you didn't read the link I posted above. For instance, 3M trademarked the "canary yellow" used in their Post-It notes. If you have a certain color combination that is distinctly yours, you can trademark it and collect royalties if anyone else wants to ever use that specific shade.
Also, Cadbury has the shade of purple on its wrappers trademarked and Tiffany's has the blue on it's packaging trademarked. I even remember a celebrity who had to get special permission from Tiffany's to use the color on their wedding cake.
"That's tremendous, Jim."
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:11 AM |
Trademark is not used to
Trademark is not used to
Trademark is not used to protect inventions, it's used to protect things associated with a brand. Michigan didn't invent the letter M or block lettering, but they can still trademark the block M.
And, yes, you can trademark a color. Tony the Tiger Orange is a trademarked color and I learned about that one 10 years ago. Generally, trademarks are industry-specific. The idea behind a trademark is not to prevent others from using the color, but to prevent competitors from using your trademarked item to compete with you. In the case of Nike, they put time and money into developing jerseys for Michigan. If a competitor can come in and offer replica jerseys for half the cost without going through the design process that Nike went through, then that is a disadvantage to Nike.
That said, I agree that trademarking a color is beyond ridiculous. If anyone is able to trademark it, it should be Michigan because the color is associated with the brand. However, that's not how it works in the legal system.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:38 AM |
Legal system
Legal system
notwithstanding, try proving that a color is exactly, and I mean exactly the same as another color. I did read the link, I just don't think it says what everybody else does.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:52 AM |
You ever heard of Pantone?
You ever heard of Pantone?
You ever heard of Pantone?
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:59 AM |
Yeah
Yeah
As a technology attorney who dabbles on patent/trademark issues, I'm with the other guys. You absolutely can trademark a color. Colors aren't that abstract; there's a reason Home Depot can reproduce the same tint in any can of paint on demand. It isn't that Nike can prevent ANYONE from using that color; it's that they can prevent its use in similar contexts (such as in Michigan-related merchandise). It's pretty standard stuff.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:12 PM |
As a trial attorney
As a trial attorney
who dabbles in many things that i consider to be ridiculous, I say I hope Nike likes an annoyed Judge looking down at them with a "you can't be serious" look on his face why Nike tries to plead its case that they in deed own the color yellow. Michigan/Adidas can splash a miniscule, wholly irrelevant hint of some other kind of yellow into a bucket, throw it on their uniforms and say "this is not Varisty-Maize, this is Awesome-Maize."
I guess Illinois and Clemson are going to have to duke it out for ownership rights to orange. And don't even get me started on Northwestern and TCU.
January 3rd, 2013 at 2:05 PM |
IANAL, but I do know that the
IANAL, but I do know that the
IANAL, but I do know that the courts prevented a fashion company from trademarking red soles for women's shoes. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that a decent lawyer couldn't convince a court that a particular shade of yellow is the exclusive property of Nike, even as it relates solely to Michigan athletics.
"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 3rd, 2013 at 3:25 PM |
I just looked up that case
I just looked up that case
I just looked up that case and it was overturned on appeal in September. Essentially, they ruled that the company being sued could make shoes with red soles if the whole shoe was red, but could not make shoes with only red soles.
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:50 PM |
It is called Trade Dress, not
It is called Trade Dress, not
It is called Trade Dress, not a trademark, and you can get protection for a color. Check this link out:
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:43 AM |
FUN FACTS
FUN FACTS
Home Depot orange is tradmarked as well as Target red.
Bo' Money Bo' Problems
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:00 PM |
That's kind of the point he's making though.
That's kind of the point he's making though.
You can claim it, but how can you enforce it?
Target's website has 3 different shades of red...including two different ones for their logo alone-
http://weeklyad.target.com/ypsilanti-mi-48197/homepage#
Look at their header, logo, and flyer.
And how is that different from Kmart red or Meijer red?
Trademarked color, similar industry (it's not like Post It protecting their yellow by saying a car can't be painted that color), yet there's nothing there. It's a game to keep trademark lawyers in business. And scare off the little guys. Because these are companies that could afford the lawsuit...yet they're all basically using the same color.
In Nike's case they'd have a hard time in court trying to prove they "developed" Michigan yellow because Michigan yellow existed before we had a contract with Nike. So they can claim they own the name because they put a TM on it, but they're not going to win saying they "own a color."
Frankly we could solve all this by going back to actual maize. The kind we were wearing before anyone paid Nike a dime. They're the ones that turned it brighter.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:18 AM |
Yes, and the specific
Yes, and the specific
Yes, and the specific colorway is "Varsity Maize." Nike also uses "Goldenrod" for Iowa and "Del Sol" for the LA Lakers.
I too wish to see a return to the swoosh. I like Adidas, but only when it comes to soccer (you know, the 'other' football) gear and accessories. Nike apparel just looked better, IMO, when watching various M teams on the field of play. For better or worse, I will always associate the '97 football team with those Nike uniforms.
Who has been putting out their Kools on my floor?!?!
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:35 PM |
trademarks
trademarks
I'm no expert on legalities but doesn't the idea of trademarking a color really boil down to naming the color? There is a subjective element to identifying and naming colors that does seem to involve some honest work. And when you start carefully examing colors, it becomes apparent that there are almost infinite possibilities.
Just take a look at paint colors. It gets mind-blowing pretty quickly. If for example Sherwin-Williams comes up with a shade and they call it "Nantucket Seaside" then it's not just the literal color (in the scientific sense of hues, saturations, etc) at stake but also the emotional imagery associated with the name of that color. There's nothing stopping another company, Pratt & Lambert for example, from literally copying the formula of the color but it'd be difficult for them to recreate the emotional element involved in the naming of the color.
It can seem silly at times but there are good reasons for companies to stake out legal claims for the work they've done.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:56 AM |
Nike
Nike
Rumor goes that Nike has "Maize" trademarked. Some disagree with this saying you can't copyright a color. I dunno, but color did seem to get lighter with the change, It has been getting lighter over the years, I heard to make it look better on camera, though I don't have a source.
Football is both an identity and a terminal illness. A rhythm and a chaos and an opiate for the mind all at once.
-Johnny Danbury (umichedme.blogspot.com)
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:16 AM |
Copyright and trademark are
Copyright and trademark are
Copyright and trademark are two different things. Frankly, I don't believe this is true ... maybe Nike could have a trademark on the name "Maize" associated with athletic apparel, but I don't think they can get a trademark on the appearance of the color maize -- this could be why addidas calls it something else. It is still absurd, though, and if true it is definitely a fuck-up by whoever negotiated the Nike contract long ago if Nike has the right to block Michigan from letting a third party vendor use the name "Maize."
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:25 AM |
I agree that it's stupid
I agree that it's stupid
But it's true. They have a trademark on "maize" (though I don't know what they actually call it). I don't have time to find a link, but this was pretty well established around here several years ago, after the switch to Adidas.
not just "douchey" MGoBlog user, but now TRUSTED MGoBlog user
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:00 AM |
Look
Look
at the color of the book 3 and Out. That is adidas and that it pretty damn close to the previous "maize" type color that everybody is referring to. Adidas has change the color of the uniform since they have gotten a hold of it, but not due to the lack of ability to use a color similar or identical to the color used in the Nike years.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:20 AM |
See my reply just above--it's
See my reply just above--it's
See my reply just above--it's "Varsity Maize."
Who has been putting out their Kools on my floor?!?!
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:59 AM |
Sparty
Sparty
Michigan State is a Nike school. In 2011 when they played us Nike gave them uniforms that were not ever their school colors. In 2012 when Sparty played us Nike gave them helmets that looked like green Christmas bulbs. That's not a better option sorry!!!!
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:46 AM |
True, but your uniform
True, but your uniform
True, but your uniform supplier doesn't have the final word on which uni's you wear on Saturday. That's on the AD.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:37 AM |
This.
This.
See other Nike schools Penn State, Alabama, USC, Texas, and Oklahoma for further clarification.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:44 AM |
which is exactly
which is exactly
why i dont think a switch to nike will change the uniform carousal as long as dave brandon is the AD.
January 3rd, 2013 at 11:05 AM |
Yeah. That doesn't make me
Yeah. That doesn't make me
Yeah. That doesn't make me feel any better.
Go Blue! Always!
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:58 PM |
I don't think the apparel
I don't think the apparel
I don't think the apparel companies (Nike, Adidas) have anything to do with helmets.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:04 AM |
Agreed. A few million seems
Agreed. A few million seems
Agreed. A few million seems like a pretty small number though... if we're talkin legit reparations for the shitty conditions those people are forced to work in. Its hard to imagine Nike not having these same issues in the future; cheap foreign labor is the name of they're game if I'm not mistaken.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
-Bob Dylan
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:00 AM |
Wasn't that the reason we left Nike?
Wasn't that the reason we left Nike?
In the 80s and 90s it was Nike that had the terrible rep for poorly paid workers.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:07 AM |
Actually
Actually
Actually, the exact same reason schools are leaving Adidas has happened to Nike in the past 5 years, they just decided it was worth paying a couple million dollars to settle with the factory workers than have a bunch of schools drop them publicly.
Seems like a pretty easy decision when it comes out the other side like this.
Intensity is a lot of guys that run fast.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:04 PM |
Nike used the same factory
Nike used the same factory
Nike used the same factory and has paid the workers so in this case adidas is worse. There are also groups working to try to get the university to drop adidas over this so upset sports fans are not alone at the hate of adidas.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:08 AM |
It was part of it
It was part of it
I definitely remember articles in the Daily and protests from some of the lefty groups on campus over Nike's labor practices. It was also part of the reason we switched to Pepsi from Coke in the campus vending machines, labor issues with the company.
Twitter: @MikeCohodes
My Blog - posts on movies, tv, and books; politics; and fatherhood Updates minimum 3x a week
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:49 AM |
Their, there, they're
Their, there, they're
.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:40 AM |
Can we organize a group of
Can we organize a group of
Can we organize a group of fans to sue them for producing shitty looking uniforms?
"Ohio is like a giant turd that Michigan just can't pinch off"
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:50 PM |
I'll join that class action.
I'll join that class action.
I'll join that class action.
Casey Anthony: Buckeye fan.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:57 AM |
German Engineering
German Engineering
Incredible machines, ugly cars.
They were who we thought they were.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:33 AM |
I was about to take umbrage with this
I was about to take umbrage with this
until I thought about it and realized you were absolutely right.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:42 AM |
BMW/Mercedes
BMW/Mercedes
BMW and Mercedes disagree with you and actually so do I. But to each their own I suppose.
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:37 PM |
For the record
For the record
I drive a 2011 535i. After dealing with the "Bangle Butt" I now have to endure the over-inflated kidney grill. The new "4 Series" coupe looks like it is going to be pretty nice, though.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:18 AM |
Audi S5
Audi S5
is a beautiful car.
...confidence is the stain they can't wipe off...
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:34 AM |
I'm sorry, but BMWs and
I'm sorry, but BMWs and
I'm sorry, but BMWs and Mercedes look a whole hell of a lot better than anything Lexus, Infiniti, or Acura are producing these days.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:51 AM |
Just sold my 5 series for an M
Just sold my 5 series for an M
You're way off base. BMW is losing their edge. Mercedes looks the best if all, but drive like coffins on wheels.
I want the swoosh back on the maize and blue again. And if Adidas owes money to labor and under paid factory workers I'd drop them too.
We hate Michigan State. We don't like Penn State too. We don't care for Minnesota, Wisconsin or Notre Dame but we all hate O-S-U.
Michigan Blue 2008 block M hockey jersey still for sale for 50.00. FREE S/H