A funny - Eagle Talk's article on the logo - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 30, 2004

A funny - Eagle Talk's article on the logo

Date: Jul 1, 2004

Actually a pretty good spoof!

It makes one wonder whether Iowa's claim is all that valid economically-speaking. I mean, how much Iowa logo merchandise is sold south of Memphis & how much USM branded stuff is sold north of Memphis?

That said, I think Giannini ought to be rattling his legal sabres are the commercial artist who came up with the "bird head" logo to begin with. If that guy really did study other universities logos, it's pretty clear that he did it to get ideas & not to avoid infringement...

Date: Jul 1, 2004

Doesn't matter where or how much merchandise is sold. What matters is the legal end of registering a trademark. Iowa registered their logo over 20 years ago.

USM should have researched trademarks before creating a new one, but this was all handled by the athletic department. And, they are one of the biggest groups to misuse the USM trademarks.

They don't have a clue about the legal issues of trademarks and collegiate licensing. They will let anyone, anytime, anywhere use the trademarks. They are not interested in protecting the integrity of USM's marks. They just want to see the money.

I assume the Giannini mafia went through the trademark process. If not, that chicken don't have a leg to stand on. Probably doesn't even if it was registered.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: sally
"
USM should have researched trademarks before creating a new one, but this was all handled by the athletic department. And, they are one of the biggest groups to misuse the USM trademarks.
"

Oh, I agree with you totally.

However, the production of the logo was outsourced to a commercial art outfit. The artist has gone on record stating that he "researched" other colleges' logos. We can only assume he was looking for ideas rather than trying to ensure that USM had a unique mark.

Still, this smells funny from the Iowa end. I can't imagine that they simply didn't notice a logo that appeared in the Top 20 football rankings. Don't assume that the Iowa athletic department is any less petty than any other athletic office.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

RE: RE: RE: A funny - Eagle Talk's article on the

Date: Jul 1, 2004

RE: A funny - Eagle Talk's article on the logo

Date: Jul 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Thames casualty
"I quit a year before the new chicken head was rolled out, but as soon as I saw it, I knew they were eventually going to have problems with the new bird. "

I actually like the logo and I think it looks better than the Iowa Turkeyhawk; but that does not matter. Iowa had it first and the two birds MIGHT be confused by the public. (As another poster has pointed out, people get confused between lots of stuff: Iowa/ Iowa State, University of Mississippi/Mississippi State; deductive/inductive reasoning.)

The point is, LOTS of people knew it would be a problem, even though they are now saying otherwise. Every poster on EagleTalk who said the new logo "looks too much like Iowa" when it was introduced was admiting the very thing they deny now. To give them credit, I doubt they are lying; I think they have just gotten used to the new logo, so it's easier to distinguish than when it was first introduced.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

I didn't care for the new logo at first, but it has grown on me. It is simular to the Iowa logo, but not so much so that it would cause confusion.

Two things that Iowa would have to prove in a legal case are - intent to defraud the consumer and damages. I don't think they can do either.

Now if SFT tries to fire professors at Iowa, that's would be the sign that things have gone two far.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
" Two things that Iowa would have to prove in a legal case are - intent to defraud the consumer and damages. "

That may be what Iowa would have to do to win a trial. I don't know the law like you do. But all they have to do is file a lawsuit (just like Frank Pickering has done) and the expense starts adding up for Southern Miss. Who do you suppose has more money to spend on this kind of foolishness? Iowa or U-US-USM?

Date: Jul 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Nod
"That may be what Iowa would have to do to win a trial. I don't know the law like you do. But all they have to do is file a lawsuit (just like Frank Pickering has done) and the expense starts adding up for Southern Miss. Who do you suppose has more money to spend on this kind of foolishness? Iowa or U-US-USM?"

Seeker's no lawyer. Just getting the facts straight here.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

RE: RE: RE: RE: A funny - Eagle Talk's article on

Date: Jul 1, 2004

RE: RE: A funny - Eagle Talk's article on the logo

Date: Jul 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
"I didn't care for the new logo at first, but it has grown on me. It is simular to the Iowa logo, but not so much so that it would cause confusion. Two things that Iowa would have to prove in a legal case are - intent to defraud the consumer and damages. I don't think they can do either. Now if SFT tries to fire professors at Iowa, that's would be the sign that things have gone two far."

As a lawyer, I can say that Seeker is wrong on both counts. The standard is whether use of the two marks is likely to cause confusion among consumers. There is no "intent to defraud the consumer" requirement (although if such intent is shown, there may be additional liability and penalties). In addition, there is no requirement to show damages. The party whose rights are violated can simply seek an injunction to stop of use of the offending junior mark.

In my experience, the outside company that develops the logo is typically not obligated to clear the mark (i.e., ensuring that there is no infringement), although the issue is usually addressed expressly in the contract between the parties. The party that acquires the logo (in this case USM) usually uses a trademark lawyer to perform a clearance search and analysis to find any potential problems.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

quote:
Originally posted by: Seeker
" Two things that Iowa would have to prove in a legal case are - intent to defraud the consumer and damages. "

A little help here. I still stand by what I said earlier: meeting a legal standard to win a trial and creating enough havok and expense to force a settlement are two very different things.

However, I would like for Seeker to explain if those two things are necessary elements to be proved in a trademark infringment (or whatever this is) case? If not, did you get it from watching TV? Were you just making it up? You sounded so certain, I thought you knew what you were talking about.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

Thanks sally and DCeagle. Y'all answered my question while I was still asking it.

Too bad about Seeker. How will I know when he knows what he is talking about?

Date: Jul 1, 2004

There seem to be a lot of questions about the "legal" aspects of this. I have copied a section from the American Institute of Graphic Artists (AIGA) website that addresses Trademark Infringement. I have not included info on the other type which is Trademark Dilution since that requires a logo to be very famous (like Coke etc.) and I don't think that applies here. I hope this helps.

__________
Trademark Infringement

Any name, symbol, logo, or combination of these items that is not generic, when used in connection with a product or service, may be protected as a trademark. Registration
is by no means a prerequisite to creating a protected mark, and even unregistered marks are protectable and enforceable. Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act grants the proprietor/owner of a protectable mark the right to prevent others from using a mark that sounds like, looks
like, or is confusingly similar to the protected mark.

“Likelihood of confusion” is a rather broad legal standard and may permit an infringement claim, even if the challenged mark is not identical to the one protected. If a reasonable consumer would be confused and misled into believing that a product or service that bears the knockoff mark is manufactured, endorsed and authorized, or licensed by the owner of the protected trademark, then an injunction against further market confusion may be obtained. The trademark owner may recover defendant’s profits, damages, and, in an appropriate case, the costs of the litigation. Thus, merely changing the spelling of a word or slightly modifying a logo will not avoid a charge of infringement. In addition, in certain circumstances,
the trademark proprietor may also recover treble damages. The fact that the alleged infringer was ignorant of the protected mark is relevant only to determining whether the case is extraordinary, in which case attorneys’ fees would then also be available.
_____________

Date: Jul 1, 2004

Good stuff - thanks Tiger.

Date: Jul 1, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by: Tiger
"If a reasonable consumer would be confused and misled into believing that a product . . . that bears the knockoff mark is manufactured, endorsed and authorized, or licensed by the owner of the protected trademark, then an injunction further market confusion may be obtained."

Who do you suppose would qualify as a Reasonable Consumer in this case? Average Jane in Des Moines, Vicksburg, or Baltimore?

How would her confusion be manifest? Shown only the two logos, could she properly match bird to school? Fill in the blank, or multiple choice? Would she get to see logo with school name? On uniform? In game? With color commentary? Is she already a fan, or did she just tune in to ESPN?

Lord, I hope someone blinks before it gets to all of this.