If I see this shirt saturday, someone is going to the hosptial

[TikiBull]

I'm sure Genshaft and the athletic department are really going to spring into action over this : : :

[the_bull_monty]

It does not really bother me, but just sent this to the seller for sport:

This item is a trademark violation per federal law.  Be prepared to face the legal consequences ($$$).

HAHAHAHAH

[Bobcat99]

If you are referring to a school's athletic program with the registered trademark letters of that school, logo or not, on an item of commercial value, then a trademark violation is in effect -- regardless of the use of a "logo" or not. The shirt that started this thread would be a trademark violation if it simply said "USF sucks at football" without any use of a logo at all.

These are pretty well-established facts of trademark law, and occasionally enforced. The licensing fee is so small per-shirt that really, if you were making a non-offensive shirt, you could more than get approved and make a profit.

I assume this isn't the place to debate trademark law.  I would love to invite you to visit us at UF Law, though.  I would be more than happy to take you to sit in on one of our excellent intellectual property courses.  Maybe we can straighten you out 

Regardless of the debated issue, the shirt in question is absolutely a violation.  Gotta get used to it, guys, it will happen a lot more the more success we have.

I don't see what you're getting at. Are you actually claiming that using a federally-registered trademark without permission in an act of commerce is somehow legal? (And I take back what I said earlier, because it appears that we don't own the letters "USF"... but WVU does own the letters "WVU" so there would indeed be a violation there.)

[FAUFB]

http://cgi.ebay.com/USF-Funny-T-Shirt-All-Sizes-S-M-L-XL-ucf-tickets_W0QQitemZ230178807268QQihZ013QQcategoryZ15687QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

report that to eBay, maybe they'll pull it. and send an email to genshaft and the athletic dept.

Lighten up, Francis!

Geez!!!

[WWMJD]

I don't see what you're getting at. Are you actually claiming that using a federally-registered trademark without permission in an act of commerce is somehow legal? (And I take back what I said earlier, because it appears that we don't own the letters "USF"... but WVU does own the letters "WVU" so there would indeed be a violation there.)

I am getting at the fact that you only have a partial understanding of IP law.  WVU has the initials trademarked.  That does not mean that you cannot use them (for more information on "fair use", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). 

You know what else they have trademarked?  The words "West Virginia", the word "Mountaineer", and the phrase "spot the ball". 

You do not have to believe me, but they would not recover if they tried to sue for the "Beat WVU" t-shirt.

Can we take this to PM if you want to continue?  I'm pretty sure we are the only two people who care.

[Bobcat99]

I don't see what you're getting at. Are you actually claiming that using a federally-registered trademark without permission in an act of commerce is somehow legal? (And I take back what I said earlier, because it appears that we don't own the letters "USF"... but WVU does own the letters "WVU" so there would indeed be a violation there.)

I am getting at the fact that you only have a partial understanding of IP law.  WVU has the initials trademarked.  That does not mean that you cannot use them (for more information on "fair use", see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use). 

You know what else they have trademarked?  The words "West Virginia", the word "Mountaineer", and the phrase "spot the ball". 

You do not have to believe me, but they would not recover if they tried to sue for the "Beat WVU" t-shirt.

Can we take this to PM if you want to continue?  I'm pretty sure we are the only two people who care.

I think it's a good education for everyone else -- but you linked me to a page about copyright fair use, which has zero relevance here. The only thing copyright fair use and trademark fair use have in common are the words "fair use."

I'm inclined to defer to the Third Circuit's test for nominative fair use:

(1) Is the use of the plaintiff's mark necessary to describe both plaintiff's product or service and defendant's product or service?

(2) Is only so much of the plaintiff's mark used as is necessary to describe plaintiff's products or services?

(3) Does the defendant's conduct or language reflect the true and accurate relationship between plaintiff's and defendant's products or services?  If each of these questions can be answered in the affirmative, the use will be considered a fair one, regardless of whether likelihood of confusion exists.

I think the Brokeback Mountaineers shirt would probably fail #3.

[WWMJD]

I should have linked more carefully.  You can find the trademark article by following the link at the top of the page I linked to.  More specifically, see "nominative fair use".

------From the article I speak of:

The nominative use doctrine was first enunciated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc., 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992), which decreed that one party may use or refer to the trademark of another if the following conditions are met:

  1. The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute)

  2. The user only uses so much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol)

  3. The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags.

Furthermore, if a use is found to be nominative, then by definition it can not dilute the trademark.

----------------

Of course, this is just a Wikipedia article and my desire to perform a substantive legal analysis on this article is not there, but simply:

1.  It is difficult/impossible to refer to WVU without using on of their trademarks (for a list, see http://www.ia.wvu.edu/tls/trademarks.html)

2.  We did not use the font, symbol, color, etc.  We only used the initials to the extent necessary for identification.

3.  No reasonable person could find that "Beat WVU" suggests sponsorship or endorsment.

Next time I'm going to charge you for the schooling my friend. 

P.S.  You are making me procrastinate on my legal writing assignment to argue law with you.  You sneaky bastard.

[TheBullies]

We're in the 11th Circuit... and who quotes the 9th?!?  >

[WWMJD]

We're in the 11th Circuit... and who quotes the 9th?!?  >

Not binding, but persuasive.  ;D  Most courts now recognize the same doctrine. 

[TheBullies]

Not binding, but persuasive.   ;D  Most courts now recognize the same doctrine. 

Next time I expect you to cite me some binding precedent. Get back to your paper.