Trojans Strip Gamecocks of "SC" mark

[leggman01]

Yes.

if you don't mind, point out the similarities (other than the fact that they use [very different forms of] the letters "s" and "c")...i'm really not trying to be a smart-ass, i just can't see how anyone could think these logo's look similar

[JetsLuvver]

They're not as close to each other as I though, but South Florida and San Francisco both had somewhat similar USF logos at one time, but I'm not sure if they were ever in use at the same time.

[Gothamite]

Maybe it's because I do this professionally (design) but I don't see any way that the Trojan helmet SC and the South Carolina hat SC are even remotely close. In fact, I'd bet that 9 out of 10 people off the street wouldn't even come close to thinking these were the same school. I could understand if South Carolina did an identical block SC in red and black but this is just so far from being the same I can't believe that it's being discussed.

The legal standard is apparently not whether they could be confused side-by-side.

The same set of letters, interlocking at roughly the same point, being used for the same purpose. That one is fancy and one is block seems not enough to set them apart to the extent that Carolina can protect their design. You may not like the law (there are many elements of intellectual property law that I'm not a fan of), but according to this ruling that's the law.

Besides, as a professional, you are undoubtedly aware of how clueless most people are of design. Wear a fashion Mets hat in navy and see how many people swear you're a Yankee fan.

[Cola]

Thought I would bump this.

South Carolina's appeal was denied today.

What was odd to me is that the South Carolina interlocking "SC" was not solely put up against the overlapping Southern California logo that we all suspected...but even the one that is simply a diagonally aligned "SC" (show on left in below photo).

South Carolina:

Southern California:

What am I still at a loss for is...can we still use the logo? We were displaying it on uniforms and selling merchandise BEFORE we applied for the trademark (that caused all of this silly legal battle)- can we continue to now, just without a trademark?

[hawk36]

So does this mean that South Carolina can NOT use their SC or just mean that both South Carolina and Southern Cal CAN use it? This whole deal reminded me of the Seattle U / Syracuse U similarities. I would assume though that there are countless of these in college where letters are used.

[Mingjai]

So does this mean that South Carolina can NOT use their SC or just mean that both South Carolina and Southern Cal CAN use it? This whole deal reminded me of the Seattle U / Syracuse U similarities. I would assume though that there are countless of these in college where letters are used.

Here's a blog that explains the decision and its effects.

http://blog.patents-tms.com/?p=247

[southpawstu19]

southern cal uses "SC" as a nickname and as an identity...kind of like miami's "u". south carolina is never called "sc" its called south carolina. i agree that this is streatching it a bit far, but since the two are legit baseball teams, imagine them both taking the field and in the same basic hats just one is black and one is yellow. if you are a novice fan and just were to assume a red "sc" cap was for southern cal, then you could be mistaken. the confusion does not take place with those who consistently are aware of both color and uniform identities. in this regard, i agree with southern cal.

[Gothamite]

Except that's not really what the case is about.

South Carolina's baseball team can continue to take the field in their "SC" caps. The University can continue to see the caps, and related merchandise, in their bookstores (as indeed they do).

South Carolina just can't trademark their "SC" logo, because it's legally too similar to the trademark owned by Southern California. That's the difference.

[Cola]

What I still fail to understand is why a common trademark agreement couldn't be an option...much like how we both share "USC".

For example, the Yankees "NY" is MUCH more identical to the Mets' "NY" than in our case...yet they both have trademarks. They play in the same league, sports, and compete for merchandise sales in the same CITY! We are on opposite coasts and in different conferences.

Just seems like a shady move, although I do understand South Carolina failed to maintain their SC identity.

[JayJaxon]

That is so shady for Southern Cal to do that. I think Carolina's SC logo looks better anyway

[letterform]

interesting.

[DarkJourney]

I guess this thread is reason 4,265 for the rest of the country to hate California

[Quillz]

I guess this thread is reason 4,265 for the rest of the country to hate California

Hate the university, not the state. Not everyone here loves USC.

[themightyspitz]

I guess this thread is reason 4,265 for the rest of the country to hate California

Hate the university, not the state. Not everyone here loves USC.

Word. Outside of LA, I've known many Cal fans who will bite the bullet and cheer for Stanford against the SC. I'm one of them.

[devilray2k1]

ok...I didn't think they would be so up in arms over the 'SC' logo...because I distinctly remember South Carolina using a 'USC' logo years ago that looked something like Southern Cal's mark...it was on the jerseys and everything...here's a small picture of it here from the 2003 football season:

if that's still somewhere a part of their identity package then I can understand...but if they're talking about the other marks then they're just being a little ridiculous

I haven't seen South Carolina's 'USC' mark since 05 or so but they did use it for years, it even appeared on basketball uniforms and merchandise at a time

[devilray2k1]

here's the 'USC' mark again plain as day

[Buster]

Oh geez....If I were the University of Georgia...I'd watch my back...The Green Bay Packers had a bad week and might be looking to take their anger out on someone....That Bulldogs helmet logo looks awfully close to something we've seen before....

If the Packers go after Grambling, they'll be called racists and the whole thing will be called off. That's how things work now.

[Gothamite]

Clever, but a bad example - both of those schools use the "G" logo under license from the Packers.

[Mingjai]

Clever, but a bad example - both of those schools use the "G" logo under license from the Packers.

Hmm... I don't think Georgia is under license because their logos are registered with the USPTO.

Georgia and Green Bay have their own registered "G" logos, but Georgia's claims the red color is claim as part of the logo: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:6ll84d.6.12. Georgia also has trademark registrations for their helmets, the earliest being: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:u9uspp.2.73. Both the logo and the helmet claim uses in 1964.

Here's Green Bay's registration: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4010:6ll84d.5.4. Earlier claimed use--1963.

Their helmet registrations are: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:u9uspp.3.19 and http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4001:u9uspp.3.14, the earliest of which claims use back to 1960.

[Gothamite]

Great find!

Perhaps I spoke inaccurately - Grambling and Georgia use their logos with the permission of the Packers.

Obviously, that extended to letting Georgia trademark their red version. Which brings us right back to this case, because that trademark registration is specifically what South Carolina is prohibited from doing under the ruling.