NFL Copyright Conflicts

[Gothamite]

The courts have ruled that universities can trademark their color combinations even when the name of the university is not present. That may seem strange, but it is the law.

So yeah, the actual name "Chargers" in team colors seems like an obvious infringement.

Wait, colors ONLY? Really? So if Auburn has done this then any blue and orange team could be in possible violation of their trademark? I can't believe that can be true. Unless they're doing the "PMS 289+1% more black" thing as their navy blue.

We're not talking about teams, we're talking about licensed and unlicensed products. Specifically products that a consumer can think are licensed by the school.

Not necessarily colors alone, but colors plus anything else that hints at the university. So a red and gray shirt with a picture of the state of Ohio was found to be an infringement. In 2010, the University of Texas got an unlicensed app called "iTexas" taken off the market in part because it was targeted at students and featured a burnt orange color scheme.

It doesn't need to explicitly use the University's name to infringe. Just colors plus possibly anything that could reasonably link the unlicensed product to the school. In Auburn's case, they may be able to stop the sale of blue and orange tshirts that say something like "Tiger Pride".

In this case, we have team colors plus the name of the team. Hard to make the case that the tshirt isn't intended to reference the San Diego gridiron team.

[guest23]

The courts have ruled that universities can trademark their color combinations even when the name of the university is not present. That may seem strange, but it is the law.

So yeah, the actual name "Chargers" in team colors seems like an obvious infringement.

Wait, colors ONLY? Really? So if Auburn has done this then any blue and orange team could be in possible violation of their trademark? I can't believe that can be true. Unless they're doing the "PMS 289+1% more black" thing as their navy blue.

I don't see how a color scheme can be property of a university. There's absolutely nothing proprietary that a school can claim nor could you effectively enforce such a protection. To the point above, who would be the rightful owner of orange & navy? Auburn? Illinois? Syracuse? Virginia?

[Jimmy!]

When I worked at Nintendo, we came out with a game called Super Play Action Football. We used colors and city names for colleges (South Bend instead of Notre Dame for example). Hokey, but it was the safest way around the issue at the time.

[Gothamite]

That doesn't seen like it would fly anymore, based on recent court rulings.

As to your question, guest, read my response above. It's not about one college versus another, but the color scheme used on merchandise with another element that references the school, even obliquely.

[sc49erfan15]

When I worked at Nintendo, we came out with a game called Super Play Action Football. We used colors and city names for colleges (South Bend instead of Notre Dame for example). Hokey, but it was the safest way around the issue at the time.

OH MY GOD. PLEASE tell me you had a part in choosing the fake team names. I had this game as a kid and got a big kick out of them. "Two Lanes," "Fluke," etc.

Also, to make this relevant to the thread:

I work at Lids, and like a few previous posters have said, we cannot embroider any state/city in their team color combinations. We're told to err on the side of caution - then again, we have contracts with multiple sports leagues to sell their hats and apparel. The print shop doesn't. But... I could see why they would shy away from making that design.

[GeauxColonels]

The courts have ruled that universities can trademark their color combinations even when the name of the university is not present. That may seem strange, but it is the law.

So yeah, the actual name "Chargers" in team colors seems like an obvious infringement.

Wait, colors ONLY? Really? So if Auburn has done this then any blue and orange team could be in possible violation of their trademark? I can't believe that can be true. Unless they're doing the "PMS 289+1% more black" thing as their navy blue.

We're not talking about teams, we're talking about licensed and unlicensed products. Specifically products that a consumer can think are licensed by the school.

Not necessarily colors alone, but colors plus anything else that hints at the university. So a red and gray shirt with a picture of the state of Ohio was found to be an infringement. In 2010, the University of Texas got an unlicensed app called "iTexas" taken off the market in part because it was targeted at students and featured a burnt orange color scheme.

It doesn't need to explicitly use the University's name to infringe. Just colors plus possibly anything that could reasonably link the unlicensed product to the school. In Auburn's case, they may be able to stop the sale of blue and orange tshirts that say something like "Tiger Pride".

In this case, we have team colors plus the name of the team. Hard to make the case that the tshirt isn't intended to reference the San Diego gridiron team.

I have a co-worker that's wife was running an embroidery business from her home. She was selling bags, hats, scarves, etc... in purple and gold with the words "Tigers," "Geaux," "Geaux Tigers," and even "Go Tigers" and they received a nice little letter from the Collegiate Licensing Company. Needless to say, she doesn't have the business anymore.

[hawk36]

The courts have ruled that universities can trademark their color combinations even when the name of the university is not present. That may seem strange, but it is the law.

So yeah, the actual name "Chargers" in team colors seems like an obvious infringement.

Wait, colors ONLY? Really? So if Auburn has done this then any blue and orange team could be in possible violation of their trademark? I can't believe that can be true. Unless they're doing the "PMS 289+1% more black" thing as their navy blue.

We're not talking about teams, we're talking about licensed and unlicensed products. Specifically products that a consumer can think are licensed by the school.

Got it. So it would seem I slipped through the cracks when I had a shop embroider a black jacket with large SSFC in lime green with blue outline (Seattle Sounders Football Club). Lucked out as I love that jacket.

Which brings to mind a question on one-offs. Years ago (before all the hard line legalities) I worked at a place and we'd commonly have MLB or NFL logos printed on a shirt or mug to pitch concepts to clients. I'm sure now 99% pitch those things on screen but it was always cool to have them hold the items first hand. Wonder how that's done now, if at all.