Jump to content

Longhorn logo drama

Majorcholas

By Majorcholas
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Not a cat

Not a cat 5618

Posted
Posted

Bush league.  I'm no IP attorney but license it to them for $1 if you're worried about protecting the trademark.

Our youth traveling baseball team has hats that look exactly like the red Sox.  I always wondered how we never got some cease and desist letter until someone on the league's board said mlb just lets any youth organization use its logos for that limited purpose. Might be an urban myth but makes sense from a PR standpoint.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31269

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Not a cat said:

Bush league.  I'm no IP attorney but license it to them for $1 if you're worried about protecting the trademark.

Our youth traveling baseball team has hats that look exactly like the red Sox.  I always wondered how we never got some cease and desist letter until someone on the league's board said mlb just lets any youth organization use its logos for that limited purpose. Might be an urban myth but makes sense from a PR standpoint.

The problem is that you can't just "license," you have to exert "quality control" over the uses of the mark by the licensee or it's as bad or worse than just letting it go.

However, it's only an infringement if it causes a "likelihood of confusion."  Most of these non-commercial uses (and a lot of commercial ones for that matter) aren't likely to cause confusion.  That is, no one thinks that the second user is affiliated with, sponsored by, or approved by The University of Texas at Austin.

In the last 10-20 years. though, there has been a concept of "dilution," where a mark is diluted or tarnished by unauthorized uses, even if there is no likelihood of confusion, and dilution has basically the same remedies as trademark infringement.  That clearly makes sense if it were a porn theater, or dildo store, or head shop or something where any association tends to reflect poorly on the University.  It makes a bit less sense with a high school team. 

Finally, out of the broad universe of logos out there, these people are picking UT's.  There must be a reason (create an association with UT, however slim), and that might justify the whole dilution concept.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31269

Posted
Posted (edited)

Also, no one was "ordered" to do anything.  They got a cease and desist letter and decided to change.  A big part of that is that few have the horses to go to court with UT.  Another part of it is the whole "busted" notion; that is, they picked the UT logo for a reason and tried to get away with it, until they got called on it.

I have less problem with this, pretty blatant copying of the logo (there are lots of longhorns out there to use) than the hassling of Bob over TOS. 

And then there's W.T. White.  https://www.dallasisd.org/domain/17330  It may be that they are willing to license White/DISD with quality control because the more local nature of the school makes the quality control more feasible.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImissWallyPryor

ImissWallyPryor 9045

Posted
Posted (edited)

There is a high school in a state where one of our “rivals” is located that uses the Texas logo. I took a pic of it a few years ago with the intent of posting, but I didn’t want Patterson to get wind of it... and I thought it was funny that football fans in that state had to see that logo. I hope that high school wasn’t shitty at football. 

Edited by ImissWallyPryor
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24651

Posted
Posted

This seems odd.  J. Frank Dobie HS in Houston (Pasadena ISD) has completely boosted the Longhorn logo, colors and name from the git go.  

I wonder if UT got on the AZ school due to the color combined with the logo or because they're in AZ and not a Texas school.  I know of Dobie's history with UT so maybe UT lets JFDHS do what it wants.  Who knows?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ShaggyBevo RIP

ShaggyBevo RIP 3868

Posted
Posted (edited)

Johnson County, Tenn. better watch out. I was so confused to see all the maroon Longhorn bumper stickers while driving thru. 

longhorn%20140wh.png?id=2033&thumbwidth=https://www.jchs.jocoed.net/1/News/2019-sports-schedules#sthash.XVlICTPJ.dpbs

 

20264920_1746876548659874_13025363284073

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Johnson-County-Longhorns-Touchdown-Club-900550459959158/photos/?ref=page_internal

Edited by ShaggyBevo RIP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
deadshank

deadshank 24651

Posted
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, texifornia said:

It's pretty easy to draw a bull's head that isn't the UT logo (or a wildcat that isn't the KSU logo, etc. etc.). Have some creativity, people.

Skin that crayon and get to work. 

Let's see it. 

Edited by deadshank
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
txhorns

txhorns 2408

Posted
Posted

It's not like these schools don't know who Texas is or that that is the Texas logo.  It's a very recognizable logo.  Any school or team that tries to use it knows that they are committed trademark infringement.  So I say fuck them and force them to stop.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquor and Poker

Liquor and Poker 3659

Posted
Posted

Why do we care?  Are we worried that some recruit will get confused and commit to Pasadena Dobie?  Or that some high school will use the logo to promote ideas that are not in line with the University. 

It’s not like the “12th Man” - something no one outside a small area ever heard of.  Everyone knows whose logo that is.  Non-sports viewers know it.  People in Europe recognize it.  

The only reason is money, right?  We want more of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

Johnson County, Tenn. better watch out. I was so confused to see all the maroon Longhorn bumper stickers while driving thru. 

longhorn%20140wh.png?id=2033&thumbwidth=https://www.jchs.jocoed.net/1/News/2019-sports-schedules#sthash.XVlICTPJ.dpbs

 

20264920_1746876548659874_13025363284073

https://www.facebook.com/pg/Johnson-County-Longhorns-Touchdown-Club-900550459959158/photos/?ref=page_internal

At first it was jammed shut, then I really opened up your mom's umbrella using my Johnson County.  That was a wet night my friend

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21770

Posted
Posted

A prominent high school team here uses Miami’s U logo. I think they pay $1000 a year. My middle school had helmets with the old Miami Dolphins logo stickers. The dolphin had an M on its helmet even though our school had no M in the name. Pretty sure nobody cared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31269

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, APMP said:

Legit, because it is has unfortunately become required by the trademark regime in the US. Another poster went over the reasons why naked licensing won't help.

I don't know that there's anything peculiar about trademarks in the US that leads to this.  We are far more invested in high school and college level sports, by several orders of magnitude, than any place on earth, which I think is the driver here, more than a use-based system, or anything else.

Trademarks of sports and education enterprises, particularly used on non-sports and non-education related goods, are problematic.  No one is likely to be confused that their longhorn shirt or cap came from UT or bitch at UT because it fell apart.  Except now we know about who they licensed to make the shit and we're actually mad about that.

But it's where so much money gets made and the American justice system hates them some copyists/imitators even though it's mostly perfectly legal to copy/imitate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
APMP

APMP 685

Posted
Posted

This thread reminds me of the Texas-Tennessee trademark settlement. Honestly some of it may be IP law legend around these parts, but there's probably some basis in truth.

 

TL;DR version I've been told is that there was a brouhaha about "UT". So the schools divided the country along the Mississippi. Allegedly, the impact of the settlement (though perhaps not the specific wording) was that trademark licensing revenue west of the Mississippi, even for Vols gear, went to Austin. And similarly, east of the Mississippi went to Knoxville.

 

Here's one article that describes it a little.

 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/02/14/The-University-of-Texas-has-reached-a-settlement-with/9255508741200/

 

Vols don't really use the UT as much as the orange T these days.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImissWallyPryor

ImissWallyPryor 9045

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, texifornia said:

It's pretty easy to draw a bull's head that isn't the UT logo (or a wildcat that isn't the KSU logo, etc. etc.). Have some creativity, people.

Try drawing a longhorn silhouette that doesn’t “too closely resemble” a silhouette  already in use. I doubt many besides UT’s are trademarked, but nevertheless, there aren’t unlimited possibilities without adding goofy eyes or nostrils.

Would adding an asterisk with a disclaimer acknowledging that the logo is trademarked by The University of Texas work?  That would look good on a helmet.

Trademark laws should allow the owner of a trademark to share that trademark with whomever they please. After all, they own it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21770

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, APMP said:

This thread reminds me of the Texas-Tennessee trademark settlement. Honestly some of it may be IP law legend around these parts, but there's probably some basis in truth.

 

TL;DR version I've been told is that there was a brouhaha about "UT". So the schools divided the country along the Mississippi. Allegedly, the impact of the settlement (though perhaps not the specific wording) was that trademark licensing revenue west of the Mississippi, even for Vols gear, went to Austin. And similarly, east of the Mississippi went to Knoxville.

 

Here's one article that describes it a little.

 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/02/14/The-University-of-Texas-has-reached-a-settlement-with/9255508741200/

 

Vols don't really use the UT as much as the orange T these days.

 

 

We had something similar when Ohio State tried to trademark OSU. It seemed so dumb to me. They have different font, different colors, and nobody is going to buy the other's gear out of confusion. The resolution here seemed so obvious. Oregon State is a little more complicated since we also have the same colors, but again, is there really anyone buying the wrong team's gear? The only situation I can recall is that we both used an interlocking OS and a store in Oklahoma clearly purchased the wrong one. OK State fans noticed right away and it made for a silly news story. We also got into a bit of a tussle with New Mexico State for using our identical Pistol Pete, but they just stopped using the one we created and their Pistol Pete looks very different now.

https://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/news/2017/09/20/osu-and-osu-make-nice-ohio-and-oklahoma-schools-to.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 32699

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Why do we care?  Are we worried that some recruit will get confused and commit to Pasadena Dobie?  Or that some high school will use the logo to promote ideas that are not in line with the University. 

It’s not like the “12th Man” - something no one outside a small area ever heard of.  Everyone knows whose logo that is.  Non-sports viewers know it.  People in Europe recognize it.  

The only reason is money, right?  We want more of it. 

Well that and, you know, losing the trademark to our awesome fucking logo. But don't let me stop y'all from hating the man!

Maybe some of the posters here can be in charge, let every high school in the country that wants to use it do so, then explain to all the Texas alumni and fans how you just didn't want to be greedy when Texas loses the trademark and a flood of shitty merchandise hits the market (and also Oklahoma and A&M merchandise vendors no longer have to pay us to put it upside down on stuff).

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2218

Posted
Posted (edited)

As other posters have pointed out, a trademark owner has to take reasonable action to protect against unauthorized use or the exclusive right to use may be lost.  I don't think any of us care that some random high school chooses to use the most recognizable logo in collegiate athletics - in fact it should be considered a compliment.  But most of us would care if the university lost the right to exclusive use, and all sorts of cheap and tawdry merchandise could legally be sold with the logo.  

 

Edit:  Huckleberry beat me to it.  

Edited by Horndog
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper

Viper 12028

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Majorcholas said:

How do we feel about this? Bush league or legit?

Ignorant posters going off of their feelings and the owners of Beso gril - "Bush league!"

Lawyers and other educated posts using logic - "Legit"

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horndog

Horndog 2218

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

Well that and, you know, losing the trademark to our awesome fucking logo. But don't let me stop y'all from hating the man!

Maybe some of the posters here can be in charge, let every high school in the country that wants to use it do so, then explain to all the Texas alumni and fans how you just didn't want to be greedy when Texas loses the trademark and a flood of shitty merchandise hits the market (and also Oklahoma and A&M merchandise vendors no longer have to pay us to put it upside down on stuff).

Which raises another question, if a license includes the right to exercise quality control.  Can Texas prohibit any licensee (e.g. OUsucks and aggy) from marketing merchandise with the horns down?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31269

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Horndog said:

Which raises another question, if a license includes the right to exercise quality control.  Can Texas prohibit any licensee (e.g. OUsucks and aggy) from marketing merchandise with the horns down?  

Yes.

I think we have established that it is legit for UT to go after even these small fry.  What I don't get, though, is users like WT White and others.

It is entirely possible that White and others were licensed before it was understood how valuable the licensing rights and therefore strong trademarks were.  The "local angle" may provide an explanation, also.

Nobody paid much attention to IP before the 80s unless they really had to.  I did not remember that Tennessee dispute.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31269

Posted
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

Try drawing a longhorn silhouette that doesn’t “too closely resemble” a silhouette  already in use. I doubt many besides UT’s are trademarked, but nevertheless, there aren’t unlimited possibilities without adding goofy eyes or nostrils.

Would adding an asterisk with a disclaimer acknowledging that the logo is trademarked by The University of Texas work?  That would look good on a helmet.

Trademark laws should allow the owner of a trademark to share that trademark with whomever they please. After all, they own it. 

Here's the problem  A trademark exists and is protected under the law because it aids consumers in differentiating products.  Its ownership by one who uses it to differentiate products is completely and utterly subject to the trademark's ability to differentiate products.  Ownership is not absolute in the sense you use in your last sentence.

If a trademark owner does something with the mark that causes it to lose its ability to differentiate products/services, the trademark owner loses ownership, too.  Coke can't license Pepsi.  Well, it can, but it will lose its trademark rights.  

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeverMarryAStripper

NeverMarryAStripper 21781

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 'stache said:

So if you license it for, say, $10 a year or something, can the school use the logo on shirts and keep all the profits or does there need to be an agreement to share some of that with UT to protect the IP?

The problem with this is then the University has to monitor their use of the trademark in order to make sure they don't damage it by say selling clan hats with the logo on it.  It quickly becomes more trouble than it's worth.  It's a lot easier to just protect it by issuing cease and desist letters.  It seems mean, but that's what the world is these days.  You just can't count on people being sane and reasonable because they aren't, and there's a shit pile of money at stake.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31269

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

The problem with this is then the University has to monitor their use of the trademark in order to make sure they don't damage it by say selling clan hats with the logo on it.  It quickly becomes more trouble than it's worth.  It's a lot easier to just protect it by issuing cease and desist letters.  It seems mean, but that's what the world is these days.  You just can't count on people being sane and reasonable because they aren't, and there's a shit pile of money at stake.

Right.  The compensation issue (royalty or flat annual or all-time fee) is not important compared to the "quality control" issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31269

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, APMP said:

This thread reminds me of the Texas-Tennessee trademark settlement. Honestly some of it may be IP law legend around these parts, but there's probably some basis in truth.

 

TL;DR version I've been told is that there was a brouhaha about "UT". So the schools divided the country along the Mississippi. Allegedly, the impact of the settlement (though perhaps not the specific wording) was that trademark licensing revenue west of the Mississippi, even for Vols gear, went to Austin. And similarly, east of the Mississippi went to Knoxville.

 

Here's one article that describes it a little.

 

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/02/14/The-University-of-Texas-has-reached-a-settlement-with/9255508741200/

 

Vols don't really use the UT as much as the orange T these days.

 

 

Totally correct.  There was actually a concurrent use proceeding.  http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4808:3e9gd8.2.61

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=94000700&pty=CNU

Wild.

A sort of comedic note, use is divided between west of the Mississippi (Texas) and east (Tennessee) except for West Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana.  So Tennessee can't UT at LSU.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquor and Poker

Liquor and Poker 3659

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Well that and, you know, losing the trademark to our awesome fucking logo. But don't let me stop y'all from hating the man!

Maybe some of the posters here can be in charge, let every high school in the country that wants to use it do so, then explain to all the Texas alumni and fans how you just didn't want to be greedy when Texas loses the trademark and a flood of shitty merchandise hits the market (and also Oklahoma and A&M merchandise vendors no longer have to pay us to put it upside down on stuff).

But can’t that be handled with a standard use contract and a nominal licensing fee?

”We will let you use this for $100/year but you have to agree to only use it as follows...”

Maybe that’s too hard to do but it doesn’t seem like it from here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
APMP

APMP 685

Posted
Posted
Which raises another question, if a license includes the right to exercise quality control.  Can Texas prohibit any licensee (e.g. OUsucks and aggy) from marketing merchandise with the horns down?  
They would likely have a case because trademark registrations don't technically specify directionality, and it's clear the horns down is supposed to evoke the trademark owner

But they would never hear the end of it from rivals, which is probably why they'll never do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Liquor and Poker

Liquor and Poker 3659

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

The problem with this is then the University has to monitor their use of the trademark in order to make sure they don't damage it by say selling clan hats with the logo on it.  It quickly becomes more trouble than it's worth.  It's a lot easier to just protect it by issuing cease and desist letters.  It seems mean, but that's what the world is these days.  You just can't count on people being sane and reasonable because they aren't, and there's a shit pile of money at stake.

I mean, I guess I can see that argument but it seems a little form over substance.  What’s to keep the local trailer park klan enclave from doing whatever they want already?  I doubt they’re afraid of a big damages award. Is the University going garnish their 7-11 wages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...