Longhorn logo drama

[APMP 688]

I don't understand the issue. The logos are clearly different colors. 

Here's the registration for the logo in Class 25 (apparel). Note that it specifically states color is not claimed as a feature. Meaning it covers the logo in all colors.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

2 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

The best way to PR it would to be to make a $10K or greater donation to the schools that have to change their logo.

Very good point.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

7 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

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?

Well it's the law.  Failure to provide for quality control in a license agreement, and to actually exercise it, can be fatal to a trademark.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to abandonment.

You'd be better off not licensing it at all.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

Bork bork borkity bork bork.

Edited August 13, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

Bork bork bork.

Edited August 13, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Well it's the law.  Failure to provide for quality control in a license agreement, and to actually exercise it, can be fatal to a trademark.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to abandonment.

You'd be better off not licensing it at all and just coping with unprosecuted rampant infringement when a seriously problematic infringer arises.

 

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well it's the law.  Failure to provide for quality control in a license agreement, and to actually exercise it, can be fatal to a trademark.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to abandonment.

You'd be better off not licensing it at all and just coping with unprosecuted rampant infringement when a seriously problematic infringer arises.

 

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well it's the law.  Failure to provide for quality control in a license agreement, and to actually exercise it, can be fatal to a trademark.  Do not pass go, do not collect $200, go directly to abandonment.

You'd be better off not licensing it at all.

OK. OK. OK.  Not what I was saying, but OK.

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

7 minutes ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

The best way to PR it would to be to make a $10K or greater donation to the schools that have to change their logo.

This is genius.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

2 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

 

 

OK. OK. OK.  Not what I was saying, but OK.

It wasn't clear to me what you were arguing exactly, but NMAS did a nice job stating the law in layman-y terms.

You can't let infringements and unauthorized uses go unprosecuted, nor can you just license any old shitbag and let em do what they want.

[Liquor and Poker 3,659]

What I was saying is that you could craft a standard use agreement, with a nominal fee, that specifies the ways in which it would be used.  The counter-argument is that the monitoring/policing of the use is just a huge pain in the ass, but in certain circumstances I'm not so sure.   I get that it won't stop NMAS' example of a "clan hat," but nothing would stop that - they're judgment proof and wouldn't care if they had a license or not.  On the other hand, a school district, it seems to me, would be a lot more amenable to reasonable restrictions.  And if they don't agree, then they can't use it. 

This, to me, would strengthen your trademark position because you are licensing, not allowing free use, while providing reasonable terms and restrictions and also monitoring quality control.  And also make you look less heavy-handed.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

16 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

What I was saying is that you could craft a standard use agreement, with a nominal fee, that specifies the ways in which it would be used.  The counter-argument is that the monitoring/policing of the use is just a huge pain in the ass, but in certain circumstances I'm not so sure.   I get that it won't stop NMAS' example of a "clan hat," but nothing would stop that - they're judgment proof and wouldn't care if they had a license or not.  On the other hand, a school district, it seems to me, would be a lot more amenable to reasonable restrictions.  And if they don't agree, then they can't use it. 

This, to me, would strengthen your trademark position because you are licensing, not allowing free use, while providing reasonable terms and restrictions and also monitoring quality control.  And also make you look less heavy-handed.

Valid points.  Most trademark licenses are probably pretty standard.  UT's are.  https://trademarks.utexas.edu/types-agreements

The problem though is this.  If you have unprosecuted infringements, they merely weaken your mark, they don't destroy it until they become so widespread as to make the mark generic. 

On the other hand, if a court finds your licensing terms inadequate or your enforcement of them inadequate, the law says your trademark goes POOF (disappears, becomes completely unenforceable).  So licensing is risky.  There is some thought among trademark experts that the whole licensing deal, called "naked licensing" or "licensing in gross," is bad law and needs to be modified, but that's the way it sits for now in most jurisdictions.

Edited August 13, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,919]

The best way to PR it would to be to make a $10K or greater donation to the schools that have to change their logo.

That would work great until every podunk school in the country used it for fund raising

[SEC 1,174]

1 hour ago, ShaggyBevo RIP said:

The best way to PR it would to be to make a $10K or greater donation to the schools that have to change their logo.

This is really smart

['stache 21,827]

I mean, these days, if some high school is printing shirts with the logo for use at a school sanctioned cross burning, UT would get wind of it pretty quick and could put in their agreement that if there is a violation of the university's usage guidelines they can terminate immediately and require them to change their logo. But in general, what is a reasonably foreseeable use of the logo by a high school that would be truly that offensive? As was mentioned, if someone did that, it would likely be without the permission of UT or the high school, so there really isn't much, if anything, added to the administrative burden. 

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,919]

I really doesn't matter if they terminate it immediately or not.  You would forever have out here an "Officially Licensed" UT cross burning or clan hood or whatever.  You do enough of these little charity licenses and eventually UT will get fucked in the ass hard.  Whatever little good PR came from giving the little guy have a break will be completely overshadowed by forever seeing aggy or OUsux wave those "officially licensed" clan hoods or whatever in front of the tv cameras.  There is just too much money in play now to take any risks with a very valuable asset.  

['stache 21,827]

The Tulsa school that uses the Miami U logo is still called the Redskins and takes a lot of shit for refusing to change the name. All sorts of U branded merchandise tied to the name which many still find offensive. Nobody has ever suggested to Miami that they should take shit for it though.

Edit: To be clear this is not meant to start a conversation whatsoever as to whether you are offended by that name, just to point out that many are, especially in higher ed, so it is relevant to the conversation on logo usage by high schools. 

Edited August 13, 2019 by 'stache

[US183 125]

[ShaggyBevo RIP 3,868]

1 hour ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

That would work great until every podunk school in the country used it for fund raising

Obviously anyone changing to a trademarked logo would get squat beyond a crease and desist. You'd only assist those that have been using the logo for years with the costs associated with changing it.

Edited August 13, 2019 by ShaggyBevo RIP

[nivek3 83]

Brad McCoy coached the Graham Steers about 10-15 years ago. 

 

[HornsOverIthaca 2,335]

Just curve the horns up some, add nostrils with flames coming out, and googly eyes.  I’d buy that.  It make some good animations too.

[Pato del Muerto 52,553]

https://wyopreps.com/teams/meeteetse-2/

[JBJ 3,664]

Note: this logo probably predates the UT logo, but I'm not certain of that.

I don't know if it would matter to the lawyer types, but it's also clearly a cow and not a steer.

Edited August 13, 2019 by JBJ

[NeverMarryAStripper 21,919]

I know there were some discussions between Fort Worth and UT and I think they made some slight changes in their logo.  That's been a while a go though and my memory is fading fast.

[DFW Horn 6,144]

I know the K-State logo is used by many high schools nationwide and I believe they're charging a nominal fee for its use. Cy-Creek, Angleton, among others. This solution is a better way to retain goodwill.

Or maybe UT just decided to stick it to out-of-state schools? J. Frank Dobie, Big Spring, etc. continue to use the unaltered Longhorn noggin.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by DFW Horn

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

8 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I know the K-State logo is used by many high schools nationwide and I believe they're charging a nominal fee for its use. Cy-Creek, Angleton, among others. This solution is a better way to retain goodwill.

Or maybe UT just decided to stick it to out-of-state schools? J. Frank Dobie, Big Spring, etc. continue to use the unaltered Longhorn noggin.

 

The Kstate family of marks is nowhere near as valuable as UTs. They can afford to be more charitable about it. Also, as wildcat is a much more common mascot than longhorns, there are probably some exclusivity issues that make the logo weaker. That is, they probably have some difficulty arguing or proving that that is recognized first and foremost as the mascot of Kstate.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

47 minutes ago, NeverMarryAStripper said:

I know there were some discussions between Fort Worth and UT and I think they made some slight changes in their logo.  That's been a while a go though and my memory is fading fast.

I believe this is correct.

[DFW Horn 6,144]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The Kstate family of marks is nowhere near as valuable as UTs. They can afford to be more charitable about it. Also, as wildcat is a much more common mascot than longhorns, there are probably some exclusivity issues that make the logo weaker. That is, they probably have some difficulty arguing or proving that that is recognized first and foremost as the mascot of Kstate.

I don't know about that.

The Woodlands got into it with Wisconsin on these same grounds a few years back, while insisting UW's "Motion W" is only a letter and isn't immediately recognizable as their trademark. But, TWHS changed their logo anyway, deciding it wasn't worth the hassle. Now they've got an even more generic, italicized W.

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by DFW Horn

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

20 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

I don't know about that.

The Woodlands got into it with Wisconsin on these same grounds a few years back, while insisting UW's "Motion W" is only a letter and isn't immediately recognizable as their trademark. But, TWHS changed their logo anyway, deciding it wasn't worth the hassle. Now they've got an even more generic, italicized W.

 

Which part?  The value?  The immediate recognizability by most of the Texas Longhorn vs. the common-as-gooseshit wildcat (I recognize KState's because we play them, but I couldn't pick Kentucky's or Arizona's or Northwestern's or Villanova's out of a crowd, not to mention all the others)?

Wisconsin, incidentally, is generally regarded as among the first to aggressively "defend" (I think assert is a more appropriate term) its trademark portfolio.  Texas is also among them.

 

[jinx 2,635]

I find this discussion pretty interesting, because I started a local Texas Exes chapter and we are forbidden to use the Longhorn logo on anything public, and the University monitors everything that we do.  They let us choose the chapter name, then they created the chapter specific Exes logo and sent it to us.  I looked at a number of other sites for the other Exes branches, and you won't find a Longhorn logo anywhere.

The rules for use of the logo allows them to be used by campus organizations, but it cannot be the primary logo and has a size limit (I think 20% of the total logo).  I then looked at all of my Texas Engineering T-shirts and found that to be the case for all of them.  All use of the logo has to be reviewed and approved by the school.

So if they are going to strictly monitor and limit the use of the logo by campus and alumni organizations, you can bet your ass some purple Arizona version ain't gonna fly.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

9 minutes ago, jinx said:

I find this discussion pretty interesting, because I started a local Texas Exes chapter and we are forbidden to use the Longhorn logo on anything public, and the University monitors everything that we do.  They let us choose the chapter name, then they created the chapter specific Exes logo and sent it to us.  I looked at a number of other sites for the other Exes branches, and you won't find a Longhorn logo anywhere.

The rules for use of the logo allows them to be used by campus organizations, but it cannot be the primary logo and has a size limit (I think 20% of the total logo).  I then looked at all of my Texas Engineering T-shirts and found that to be the case for all of them.  All use of the logo has to be reviewed and approved by the school.

So if they are going to strictly monitor and limit the use of the logo by campus and alumni organizations, you can bet your ass some purple Arizona version ain't gonna fly.

It is a little bit psychotic isn't it?  I had a friend in school that commissioned some neon longhorn signs, for himself and a couple of friends.  Then they decided to take them to the Co-Op to sell.  They were swiftly shut down with a large royalty demand.  This was 1987-88.

[DFW Horn 6,144]

22 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Which part?  The value?  The immediate recognizability by most of the Texas Longhorn vs. the common-as-gooseshit wildcat (I recognize KState's because we play them, but I couldn't pick Kentucky's or Arizona's or Northwestern's or Villanova's out of a crowd, not to mention all the others)?

Wisconsin, incidentally, is generally regarded as among the first to aggressively "defend" (I think assert is a more appropriate term) its trademark portfolio.  Texas is also among them.

 

Your assertion that UT's logo is "more valuable" can be proven through the CLC's merchandise sales history and data. Your other claim that K-State's logo "isn't recognizable" wouldn't necessarily hold up in court as The Woodlands vs Wisconsin article documents. "Common as gooseshit" is your uniformed, subjective opinion that I doubt Learfield Licensing Partners or K-State will accept. 

If K-State decides not to aggressively protect its trademarks that's their choice.

Edited August 13, 2019 by DFW Horn

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

22 minutes ago, DFW Horn said:

Your assertion that UT's logo is "more valuable" can be proven through the CLC's merchandise sales history and data. Your other claim that K-State's logo "isn't recognizable" wouldn't necessarily hold up in court as The Woodlands vs Wisconsin article documents. "Common as gooseshit" is your uniformed, subjective opinion that I doubt Learfield Licensing Partners or K-State will accept. 

If K-State decides not to aggressively protect its trademarks that's their choice.

The point is, UT made this Longhorn famous:

Subsequent events have shown that others want to use that logo for their own longhorns, but the longhorn mascot and that mark is still strongly identified with UT and has great commercial value as a result.

The Texas longhorn logo is a strong trademark and has indisputable value.  The KState wildcat, much less so.  Thousands or millions of non-sports fans can identify the above as the Texas Longhorn.  I doubt more than a handful could identify KState's wildcat as theirs.  I didn't say that it wasn't recognizable at all, I don't doubt that it's an enforceable trademark.  But it is not a particularly strong one, due in no small part to the ubiquity of wildcats as sports teams/school mascots (four in D1, alone, probably dozens more at the college level, and thousands at the high school level).

Texas is in a better position, legally, to assert the above trademark aggressively than KState is with their wildcat.  Texas also has more incentive to assert and protect it.  It is the "business" of the respective institution, but Texas has more value to protect.  Wisconsin is similar with Bucky.  In both cases, the aggressiveness extends to less distinctive marks.

[Sbbruin 21,866]

Well, as memory serves, UT took a huge shit on a little ol' website dedicated to the finer things in life for using the term "bevo" in its website name, so this seems par for the course.

[Zavala 1,384]

You have to actively protect your copyrights or shitheads get to steal it. Like "saw em off" turds. 

You cannot selectively protect them or they will use that against you.

[DFW Horn 6,144]

10 minutes ago, Zavala said:

You have to actively protect your copyrights or shitheads get to steal it. Like "saw em off" turds. 

You cannot selectively protect them or they will use that against you.

Isn't this why UT and K-State contract with CLC and Learfield?

It's basically their jobs to "protect their brands" from unauthorized use, right? "Ubiquity" of a team name or mascot isn't necessarily important. Wisconsin and K-State have trademarked their logos.

[Fuck Tim Beck 3,834]

I've always wondered how the Axtell Longhorns pulled this off. 

[The Ace of Aces 5,193]

This hurts the brand far more than letting some podunk high school use a purple version. Also purple? Should get a C&D for that atrocity. It’s the letter of the law but it looks petty.

I get if they’re selling merchandise for profit and national advertising that could confuse them with the university but uhhhhh that’s not happening here.

I’m a comm Director and control the brand of a large company and we wouldn’t fuck with a public school. 

Hell Michigan better get busy contacting the 4,874 schools that use the Wolverine helmet and Norte Dame better jump on the 26,849 schools using its song.

[Francisco 2.0 32,405]

Friend of mine is a public school AD.  Some years ago, he received a cease and desist letter from Georgia Tech, since his school used their logo.  GT caught them easily enough; some kid had pulled the logo off and used it on the school website.  GT looked at server logs, made the connection, sent the letter.

 

 

 

GT made an offer:  $1 fee per year for 99 years in return for using the logo.  He was hesitant, until I pointed out the logo was plastered everywhere---basketball floor, elementary school hallways, whatever.   Wasn't used exclusively by athletic teams.  He sent them $99 and that was it.

[Helobious 9,464]

14 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.

Yeah but then you end up with the goofy-looking shit that Laredo United has rocked for years. 

Spoiler

 

[Zavala 1,384]

I've always wondered what the fuck even is this logo:

It's on a shitload of "official" cheapie merch. It's not really a knock off, not sure exactly what it is.

Anyway, if they want a longhorn so bad, just design your own. Fuck it ain't rocket surgery.

 

[Alien Octopus 559]

On 8/13/2019 at 6:49 AM, deadshank said:

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?

J Frank Dobie is responsible for a lot of things longhorn, doubt we would ever not go along with that. Used to go to Pasadena High School, and lived not far from Dobie.

[utee94 15,842]

19 hours ago, The Ace of Aces said:

This hurts the brand far more than letting some podunk high school use a purple version. Also purple? Should get a C&D for that atrocity. It’s the letter of the law but it looks petty.

I get if they’re selling merchandise for profit and national advertising that could confuse them with the university but uhhhhh that’s not happening here.

I’m a comm Director and control the brand of a large company and we wouldn’t fuck with a public school. 

Hell Michigan better get busy contacting the 4,874 schools that use the Wolverine helmet and Norte Dame better jump on the 26,849 schools using its song.

Michigan didn't originate the winged helmet.  It came directly from Princeton, but was also preceded there by a handful of other schools-- including for short periods of time Michigan's chief rivals Michigan State and Ohio State.

I don't know whether or not UM has that helmet trademarked, but even if they do, I'm not sure they'd have an easy time defending the mark. Just saying, it's not really equivalent, at all.

[texifornia 57,046]

 

[Llewelyn Moss 210]

On 8/13/2019 at 1:22 AM, ImissWallyPryor said:

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. 

Ahh, Jones, OK. Nice place /s

Colors are green and white. And no, they do not suck at football. 

[DougO 5,254]

Axtell

 

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

1 hour ago, texifornia said:

 

That is getting a bit absurd.  Also, it notes that it was actually Learfield that sent the cease and desist.  They are clearly becoming more and more responsible for every aspect of our trademarks and branding, including enforcement.  All about the money for them.

[texifornia 57,046]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

That is getting a bit absurd.  Also, it notes that it was actually Learfield that sent the cease and desist.  They are clearly becoming more and more responsible for every aspect of our trademarks and branding, including enforcement.  All about the money for them.

That's a smart way to make the school not the bad guy, while maintaining the value of the identity for everyone involved. Except the high school - though just switching to some sort of open source block R shouldn't be hard.

[TwiceHorn 31,519]

3 minutes ago, texifornia said:

That's a smart way to make the school not the bad guy, while maintaining the value of the identity for everyone involved. Except the high school - though just switching to some sort of open source block R shouldn't be hard.

True enough.  The whole Learfield saga is weird.  Learfield was a radio broadcast conglomerate that specialized in the lower midwest and I guess second and third tier rights for the lower end of the Big 8 and Big 10.  Then there was CLC, and of course the ubiquitous IMG, which is the sports end of WIlliam Morris.  Now they're all merged and under the Learfield brand, at least for now.  HQ in Plano, which had no connection to any of them.

With the R, which isn't very distinctive, Rutgers would probably have a hard time wining against Ruston HS unless Ruston deliberately picked the Rutgers R.  But, of course, it's the litigation not the outcome.  And by gradually eliminating block Rs from high schools and other sports entities, Rutgers might actually achieve a strong trademark.  Right now, it's shit. though.

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

1 hour ago, Llewelyn Moss said:

Ahh, Jones, OK. Nice place /s

Colors are green and white. And no, they do not suck at football. 

Good guess, but no. 

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

46 minutes ago, ImissWallyPryor said:

Good guess, but no. 

I searched this HS, and they do use the Texas Longhorn logo, but not universally. They have a couple of silly renditions they also use. Some look more red, some look orange. I took a pic of a sign in town with the Texas version, but it’s not on my phone  

I found another HS in that state named Longhorns using our logo. It’s even orange. The helmet decal looks like Texas’, but the fan gear uses a different one, probably at the manufacturer’s insistence.

These schools play each other, and the small town newspapers get confused.

I need to get a life. 

Edited August 16, 2019 by ImissWallyPryor

[ImissWallyPryor 9,046]

3 hours ago, texifornia said:

 

Just put a bearcat face inside the top part of the R and tell Rutgers to fuck themselves. What exactly is a bearcat?

Edited August 16, 2019 by ImissWallyPryor