Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

DEF points us to a recent appeals court (federal circuit) ruling that held that the University of South Carolina cannot use the letters USC on its sports uniforms because the University of Southern California already claims those letters. Seriously. It's hard to see how this makes much sense at all. USC is an accurate acronym for both schools, and it makes no sense to limit it. In an amazingly obnoxious gloating victory note, the lawyer for the USC from California "suggested that the letters were more deservedly linked to the Trojans' warrior image than to 'a goofy little chicken,'" by which he meant the logo of the South Carolina teams. The lawyer for the USC from the east coast noted that "Southern manners" kept him from responding to that point.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20100124/1914237887.shtml

This is ridiculous.


and the NFL owns "Who Dat" haha! I hope this gets appealed.

Uhhh....its a Trademark case. USC trademarked the logo.....seems pretty straightforward to me.

danefan wrote:Uhhh....its a Trademark case. USC trademarked the logo.....seems pretty straightforward to me.

so South Carolina can't use "USC"? Seems stupid.

Ibanez wrote:

danefan wrote:Uhhh....its a Trademark case. USC trademarked the logo.....seems pretty straightforward to me.

so South Carolina can't use "USC"? Seems stupid.

They can use USC as an acronym, but they cannot use the SC logo



Doesn't seem stupid to me. People cannot use the Yankees interlocking NY for the same reason. Nothing more than a logo.

I've got no problem with it. Southern Cal's spent a lot of time and money building up recognition of the "USC" name, especially in regards to athletics. South Carolina was late to the game in that regards (I'm pretty sure USC has the first use as well) and was basically profiting off of what Southern Cal had done. It's not like Southern Cal is taking a widely used name off the market (like say the name "John") for everything. But within the college sphere, especially sports, they are.

As for the NFL thing, well, the NFL will never get full use of "Who Dat". But if you try to use the Saints name, logo, or colors when using that, well, that starts to get tricky. Want to print a green shirt with "Who Dat" on there and the NFL won't have a leg to stand on.

danefan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: so South Carolina can't use "USC"? Seems stupid.

They can use USC as an acronym, but they cannot use the SC logo



Doesn't seem stupid to me. People cannot use the Yankees interlocking NY for the same reason. Nothing more than a logo.

Carolina uses the SC logo? I haven't paid much attention but don't recall that. Oh well...

Ibanez wrote:

danefan wrote:
They can use USC as an acronym, but they cannot use the SC logo



Doesn't seem stupid to me. People cannot use the Yankees interlocking NY for the same reason. Nothing more than a logo.

Carolina uses the SC logo? I haven't paid much attention but don't recall that. Oh well...

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100 ... tug-of-war

Would a reasonable person confuse a USC logo on a garnet-and-black ball cap in Columbia, S.C., with the same letters on cardinal-and-gold sportswear worn by a Trojans fan at the Los Angeles Coliseum?

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday upheld a decision last year by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review board to recognize the University of Southern California's century-old claim to the logo letters.

The issue is product confusion. That's the trademark infringement standard.

its a shame for South Carolina, because their only good logo was the SC baseball logo.

Sounds like grounds for secession

OL FU wrote:Sounds like grounds for secession

TO WAHR!

Indiana State should quickly trademark "ISU", and then sue Iowa State, Illinois State, and Idaho State.

I'll still feel that South Carolina is the REAL USC.

Oh I guess Northern Colorado is boned too then.

Dane,

People might not be able to use the EXACT NY logo the Yankees use, but there are other interlocking NY logos out there that are still perfectly legal. Hence the Mets and the baseball Giants. One could also look to the B logos for Brooklyn and Boston and the C logos in Cincinnati, Chicago, and Minnesota. I'm sure there are similar examples.

And if it's up to the quickest one to claim an acronym, watch out. USF might lose out to San Fran. Heck, Vince McMahon has already lost one of those lawsuits. UOP is running scared of that fly-by-night operation U of Phoenix for the THREAT of a lawsuit, even though UOP has been around since the 1850s. Someone ought to put a stop to this nonsense.

JayJ79 wrote:Indiana State should quickly trademark "ISU", and then sue Iowa State, Illinois State, and Idaho State.

...and their own football team.

SuperHornet wrote:Dane,

People might not be able to use the EXACT NY logo the Yankees use, but there are other interlocking NY logos out there that are still perfectly legal. Hence the Mets and the baseball Giants. One could also look to the B logos for Brooklyn and Boston and the C logos in Cincinnati, Chicago, and Minnesota. I'm sure there are similar examples.

And if it's up to the quickest one to claim an acronym, watch out. USF might lose out to San Fran. Heck, Vince McMahon has already lost one of those lawsuits. UOP is running scared of that fly-by-night operation U of Phoenix for the THREAT of a lawsuit, even though UOP has been around since the 1850s. Someone ought to put a stop to this nonsense.

Ughhh what?

its a logo. its trademarked. If another team or business tries to use it (and even changes colors, etc.) and it creates what is called "consumer confusion" then they can be sued and they will lose.

The Court held that the South Carolina logo was too close to the USC logo. They can change it slightly and it won't be a problem as long as they can show that it doesn't create consumer confusion. They may even be able to do as little as put curly cues on the ends like the Mets did with their interlocking NY.

No one is claiming an acronym. You're confused.

Sorry, Dane. I was responding to a question from Ibanez that seemed to be more reacted to than answered. Is that bad? LOL.

Southern Cal trademarked the idea of "an interlocking SC." That's why they won this. South Carolina can still use USC. They can still use SC. They just can't interlock them.

The Yankees/Mets argument doesn't work. They trademarked the actual logo, not the idea behind the logo.

they ought to do like Green Bay - they let Georgia and Grambling use the "G" for a price

And what about that ugly thing Michigan and Delaware use on their helmets?

SuperHornet wrote:And what about that ugly thing Michigan and Delaware use on their helmets?

What about it? Your open ended questions with no fucking point to them reflect badly on you and all those that know you. Is it trademarked? If it is then I think it's safe to assume that Michigan is getting paid for the use of it.

SuperHornet wrote:And what about that ugly thing Michigan and Delaware use on their helmets?

Michigan
Delaware
Princeton
Gustavus

I could go on with teams that use the helmet wing...

The way I heard it, Michigan stole it from Delaware.

SuperHornet wrote:The way I heard it, Michigan stole it from Delaware.

Princeton's head coach came up with the design in the mid-30s, and he took it with him when he went to Michigan. I don't know where UD falls in, but they weren't at the front of the line.

vs.



Not really sure where the court's coming from on this one...the Gamecocks' logo looks pretty different from the Trojans' at least to me.