UPDATED: Back of scoreboard - Maize M looks a-go

Submitted by MGoBender on

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:

 

Deep Under Cover

July 28th, 2011 at 11:45 AM ^

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...

OldManUfer

July 28th, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^

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.

Section 1

July 28th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^

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."

michfan4borw

July 28th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^

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.

dahblue

July 28th, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^

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.

dahblue

July 28th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^

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?

michfan4borw

July 28th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

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. 

Purkinje

July 28th, 2011 at 1:29 PM ^

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.

OldManUfer

July 28th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^

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

Michigasling

July 28th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^

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. 

Section 1

July 28th, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^

...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!

name redacted

July 28th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^

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.   

 

74polSKA

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.

dahblue

July 28th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

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!

Rashman

July 28th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^

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.

chrs5mr

July 28th, 2011 at 12:33 PM ^

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.