Jump to content

Coastal Carolina University adds Teal Turf


MR. 3G

Recommended Posts

You can't trademark a product. You PATENT it.

And looking through the USPTO website, I'm not seeing anything relating to "Boise State" regarding anything field, turf, or playing surface related. Just as everyone keeps thinking that the NCAA has banned colored fields, or grandfathered in old ones, I think this idea that others need approval from Boise State is the same. Wrong info.

Boise State has U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,707,623.

And it is for ONLY THE BLUE FIELD. Every other color of the rainbow is open for field coloring

Sorry, I'm on an iPad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

http://www.highereducationlaw.org/url/2014/8/19/boise-states-trademark-blues.html

Interesting. I found that while I was looking for the USPTO filing. It's not a court decision, just a legal opinion, but it definitely seems like Boise State could just be pissing on the whole rainbow to mark their territory. The person above thinks they shouldn't even have a trademark for a blue field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't trademark a product. You PATENT it.

And looking through the USPTO website, I'm not seeing anything relating to "Boise State" regarding anything field, turf, or playing surface related. Just as everyone keeps thinking that the NCAA has banned colored fields, or grandfathered in old ones, I think this idea that others need approval from Boise State is the same. Wrong info.

Boise State has U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,707,623.

That's for the Boise State Blue color as applied to a field as a 'trade dress'. It doesn't cover all fields of non-green color, nor does it cover production of blue fields.

Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, the presentation of intercollegiate sporting events and sports exhibitions rendered in a stadium, and through the media of radio and television broadcasts and the global communications network. FIRST USE: 19860913. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19860913 Mark Drawing Code (2) DESIGN ONLY Design Search Code 06.09.08 - Arenas, indoor; Athletic fields (except stadiums and arenas); Baseball fields; Basketball courts; Bowling lanes; Courts, athletic; Diamonds, baseball; Football fields; Playing fields; Racquet ball court; Tennis courts

29.02.03 - Blue (single color used for the entire goods/services) Trademark Search Facility Classification Code BLDG-AND-SCEN A type of building or a type of scenery

SHAPES-BAR-BANDS Designs with bar, bands or lines

SHAPES-COLORS-1 Design listing or lined for a single color

SHAPES-GEOMETRIC Geometric figures and solids including squares, rectangles, quadrilaterals and polygons Serial Number 77574724 Filing Date September 19, 2008 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition May 19, 2009 Registration Number 3707623 Registration Date November 10, 2009 Owner (REGISTRANT) Boise State University STATE AGENCY IDAHO Business Building, Room 319 1910 University Drive Boise IDAHO 83725 Attorney of Record Brad R. Frazer Description of Mark The color(s) blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color blue used on the artifical turf in the stadium. The matter shown in broken lines on the drawing shows positioning of the mark and is not claimed as a feature of the mark. Type of Mark SERVICE MARK Register PRINCIPAL-2(F) Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't trademark a product. You PATENT it.

And looking through the USPTO website, I'm not seeing anything relating to "Boise State" regarding anything field, turf, or playing surface related. Just as everyone keeps thinking that the NCAA has banned colored fields, or grandfathered in old ones, I think this idea that others need approval from Boise State is the same. Wrong info.

Boise State has U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,707,623.

That's for the Boise State Blue color as applied to a field as a 'trade dress'. It doesn't cover all fields of non-green color, nor does it cover production of blue fields.

Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, the presentation of intercollegiate sporting events and sports exhibitions rendered in a stadium, and through the media of radio and television broadcasts and the global communications network. FIRST USE: 19860913. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19860913 Mark Drawing Code (2) DESIGN ONLY Design Search Code 06.09.08 - Arenas, indoor; Athletic fields (except stadiums and arenas); Baseball fields; Basketball courts; Bowling lanes; Courts, athletic; Diamonds, baseball; Football fields; Playing fields; Racquet ball court; Tennis courts

29.02.03 - Blue (single color used for the entire goods/services) Trademark Search Facility Classification Code BLDG-AND-SCEN A type of building or a type of scenery

SHAPES-BAR-BANDS Designs with bar, bands or lines

SHAPES-COLORS-1 Design listing or lined for a single color

SHAPES-GEOMETRIC Geometric figures and solids including squares, rectangles, quadrilaterals and polygons Serial Number 77574724 Filing Date September 19, 2008 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition May 19, 2009 Registration Number 3707623 Registration Date November 10, 2009 Owner (REGISTRANT) Boise State University STATE AGENCY IDAHO Business Building, Room 319 1910 University Drive Boise IDAHO 83725 Attorney of Record Brad R. Frazer Description of Mark The color(s) blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color blue used on the artifical turf in the stadium. The matter shown in broken lines on the drawing shows positioning of the mark and is not claimed as a feature of the mark. Type of Mark SERVICE MARK Register PRINCIPAL-2(F) Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Sorry but I'm more likely to trust BSU's Director of Trademark Licensing and Enforcement than a few guys on a sports forum about what their trademark/patient covers.

Understandably, Boise State is protective of its signature blue playing surface, which FieldTurf has produced since 2008. In a 2011 Q & A with the Idaho Statesman, Rachael Bickerton, the school’s director of trademark licensing and enforcement, explained that her employer has a federal trademark “for the color blue as it applies to artificial turf in a stadium.”

The trademark actually applies to any non-green field. If that sounds cynical to you, don’t worry: The school issues licenses for free, as long as schools don’t purposely model their colorful fields after Boise State’s. “In general, when it’s another color, we do approve it,”Bickerton told the Statesman in March. “If a big school wants to put an orange field in, because it’s one of our colors, I can’t necessarily say we’d say yes.”

JeKhnr9.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the NCAA banned colored turfs. Or is that just for FBS?

That was the NFL. But I believe Boise St owns the trademark for non-green colored athletic fields, so if another school wanted a colored turf they would need permission from BSU.

That's bogus. How can they have a trademark for all colors when they only have a blue field? That would make no sense.

From USA Today:

Understandably, Boise State is protective of its signature blue playing surface, which FieldTurf has produced since 2008. In a 2011 Q & A with the Idaho Statesman, Rachael Bickerton, the school’s director of trademark licensing and enforcement, explained that her employer has a federal trademark “for the color blue as it applies to artificial turf in a stadium.”

The trademark actually applies to any non-green field. If that sounds cynical to you, don’t worry: The school issues licenses for free, as long as schools don’t purposely model their colorful fields after Boise State’s. “In general, when it’s another color, we do approve it,”Bickerton told the Statesman in March. “If a big school wants to put an orange field in, because it’s one of our colors, I can’t necessarily say we’d say yes.”

Sounds like legal posturing to me, because the only registered trademark is for a blue-field: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:1ozoio.4.5. Maybe there's something else that didn't turn up in my TESS search on Boise State as trademark owner, but that's all I could find.

If I were a school trying to install a non-blue field and BSU tried to get me to take a license, I'd tell them to go pound sand.

Visit my store on REDBUBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't trademark a product. You PATENT it.

And looking through the USPTO website, I'm not seeing anything relating to "Boise State" regarding anything field, turf, or playing surface related. Just as everyone keeps thinking that the NCAA has banned colored fields, or grandfathered in old ones, I think this idea that others need approval from Boise State is the same. Wrong info.

Boise State has U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3,707,623.

That's for the Boise State Blue color as applied to a field as a 'trade dress'. It doesn't cover all fields of non-green color, nor does it cover production of blue fields.

Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, the presentation of intercollegiate sporting events and sports exhibitions rendered in a stadium, and through the media of radio and television broadcasts and the global communications network. FIRST USE: 19860913. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19860913 Mark Drawing Code (2) DESIGN ONLY Design Search Code 06.09.08 - Arenas, indoor; Athletic fields (except stadiums and arenas); Baseball fields; Basketball courts; Bowling lanes; Courts, athletic; Diamonds, baseball; Football fields; Playing fields; Racquet ball court; Tennis courts

29.02.03 - Blue (single color used for the entire goods/services) Trademark Search Facility Classification Code BLDG-AND-SCEN A type of building or a type of scenery

SHAPES-BAR-BANDS Designs with bar, bands or lines

SHAPES-COLORS-1 Design listing or lined for a single color

SHAPES-GEOMETRIC Geometric figures and solids including squares, rectangles, quadrilaterals and polygons Serial Number 77574724 Filing Date September 19, 2008 Current Basis 1A Original Filing Basis 1A Published for Opposition May 19, 2009 Registration Number 3707623 Registration Date November 10, 2009 Owner (REGISTRANT) Boise State University STATE AGENCY IDAHO Business Building, Room 319 1910 University Drive Boise IDAHO 83725 Attorney of Record Brad R. Frazer Description of Mark The color(s) blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color blue used on the artifical turf in the stadium. The matter shown in broken lines on the drawing shows positioning of the mark and is not claimed as a feature of the mark. Type of Mark SERVICE MARK Register PRINCIPAL-2(F) Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Sorry but I'm more likely to trust BSU's Director of Trademark Licensing and Enforcement than a few guys on a sports forum about what their trademark/patient covers.

Understandably, Boise State is protective of its signature blue playing surface, which FieldTurf has produced since 2008. In a 2011 Q & A with the Idaho Statesman, Rachael Bickerton, the school’s director of trademark licensing and enforcement, explained that her employer has a federal trademark “for the color blue as it applies to artificial turf in a stadium.”

The trademark actually applies to any non-green field. If that sounds cynical to you, don’t worry: The school issues licenses for free, as long as schools don’t purposely model their colorful fields after Boise State’s. “In general, when it’s another color, we do approve it,”Bickerton told the Statesman in March. “If a big school wants to put an orange field in, because it’s one of our colors, I can’t necessarily say we’d say yes.”

Working in intellectual property litigation, I absolutely don't trust any patent, trademark, or copyright owner when they describe what their IP covers. IP owners are notorious for notorious for trying to broaden the scope of what they own--the good thing is that the USPTO keeps a file of all patents and federally-registered trademarks so that anyone can look up and see how broad the IP owner's rights actually are.

Additionally, trademark rights also require use for them to continue to be valid. Even if BSU had a trademark on, e.g., an orange field, they wouldn't be able to enforce any rights to that trademark because they aren't actually using the trade dress in commerce--i.e., BSU doesn't have an orange field.

Visit my store on REDBUBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Working in intellectual property litigation, I absolutely don't trust any patent, trademark, or copyright owner when they describe what their IP covers. IP owners are notorious for notorious for trying to broaden the scope of what they own--the good thing is that the USPTO keeps a file of all patents and federally-registered trademarks so that anyone can look up and see how broad the IP owner's rights actually are.

Additionally, trademark rights also require use for them to continue to be valid. Even if BSU had a trademark on, e.g., an orange field, they wouldn't be able to enforce any rights to that trademark because they aren't actually using the trade dress in commerce--i.e., BSU doesn't have an orange field.

THIS. IN SPADES.

When my non-profit group was awarded the call sign "WKRP" for our radio station, a guy in Cincinnati approached me almost immediately claiming that there might be an issue, as he had branded his television station and trademarked the phrases "WKRP" and "WKRP Cincinnati." This despite the fact that he'd not requested the call sign from the FCC.

I looked up the USPTO filing, and saw just that it was limited to a specific area ("television broadcasting" or some such thing). But to avoid hassle I convinced my Board of Directors to consider making a deal with the guy. Then he made the mistake of getting his DC broadcast attorney involved. The attorney, in turn, proceeded to over-reach, by a factor of ten, as to just how far his client's rights extended as it pertained to the situation.

At that point, rather than reach an agreement I essentially told them to get bent. My organization had the call sign, and was going to use it on our air, or anywhere else, and in any damned way we saw fit save one - we wouldn't attempt to use it in television broadcasting.

That was the end of it.

nav-logo.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the NCAA banned colored turfs. Or is that just for FBS?

That was the NFL. But I believe Boise St owns the trademark for non-green colored athletic fields, so if another school wanted a colored turf they would need permission from BSU.

That's bogus. How can they have a trademark for all colors when they only have a blue field? That would make no sense.

From USA Today:

Understandably, Boise State is protective of its signature blue playing surface, which FieldTurf has produced since 2008. In a 2011 Q & A with the Idaho Statesman, Rachael Bickerton, the school’s director of trademark licensing and enforcement, explained that her employer has a federal trademark “for the color blue as it applies to artificial turf in a stadium.”

The trademark actually applies to any non-green field. If that sounds cynical to you, don’t worry: The school issues licenses for free, as long as schools don’t purposely model their colorful fields after Boise State’s. “In general, when it’s another color, we do approve it,”Bickerton told the Statesman in March. “If a big school wants to put an orange field in, because it’s one of our colors, I can’t necessarily say we’d say yes.”

Least necessary trademark ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bad idea. The teal looks close enough to actual turf that it might confuse some people.

It actually doesn't look far off the color of old Astroturf fields. So while not attractive by any measure, it's also not completely jarring for anyone who watched sports in the 70's and 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I was aware of the coach's background. I work out with an incoming freshman QB and he's talked about all that's going on there.

Thrasher? If so, really surprised a lower tier FBS program didn't take him. We're extremely excited to have him, and look for him to take the reigns after this upcoming season.

That's the one. Chance is a good guy who you won't have to worry about getting in trouble or doing anything dumb, because he understands what it takes to succeed. And ya he's good, his team absolutely demolished my school's this past season.

BTW, I like this turf a lot. The copper colored end zones are a great touch as well.

Good to hear! Can't wait to see him take the reigns. The end zones are suppose to be bronze, but they seem way to bright to me. They may have lightened them a little to give it that "beachy" feel.

It's still a terrible trend.

I agree, I'm a traditionalist! I was against this for the longest, but this isn't as bad as I thought it would be. I heard we're moving to Adidas and going with Grey and Black home uniforms to avoid a color contrast.

Should be interesting if true!

I knew there would be a downside to this...

So is Coastal getting new uniforms too? I'd hope they keep their current uniform or upgrade to something like what the Arizona Rattlers wear.

Well, it's a rumor thus far. We're coming up on the final year of our Russell deal (Aug. 2016) It's been rumored that Adidas is going to buy us out of our remaining deal and we're going Grey and Black.

Now, we had Adidas prior to 2011, and if I remember correctly Adidas didn't have teal; so we went to a local manufacture and had them make teal jerseys with the Adidas logo slapped on them (with permission from Adidas of course). So combine that with the teal turf, and that does seem like that rumor could have some legs.

The Rattlers uniform with the white helmet correct? If your talking about Arizona's copper helmets, we have yet to use bronze as more then an accent color. And add to the fact that our fan base likes the plain black helmets; and most don't want it changed. I like the white helmet look though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about Boise State's blue field being trademarked or patented and how that prevents other schools from having blue fields reminds me how the University of New Haven colored their field blue back in 2009 and Boise State made a stink about it and tried to stop it but they couldn't. And New Haven is Division II and Boise State STILL made a stink! Anyway New Haven still has a blue field to this day. But what makes me angry about this whole thing is why would New Haven want to be the *SECOND* school to have a blue football field when they could have been the first with a yellow field? (Their colors are blue and yellow.) Maybe they knew picking blue would piss off Boise State and they would get tons of publicity for it? That's probably the reason. All press is good press.

0e628b261f8f3075f817f9b5c268ffce.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative turf look has run its course.

Um... you DO know that "the alternative turf look" was started by Boise State in 1986 and no other school had a non-green football field until 2009 right? That's 23 years! Whatever trademarks or patents Boise State had must have been enough to scare other schools away from having non-green fields because if they got a blue field in 1986 you'd think some other schools would have installed a non-green field shortly after that. Nope. So it makes you wonder why it took 23 years for a non-green football field trend to start when Boise State was the first in '86.

Here is the complete timeline of non-green football fields:

1) Boise State, blue installed in 1986

2) University of New Haven, blue installed in 2009

3) Eastern Washington, red installed in 2010

4) Central Arkansas, purple and gray alternating every five yards installed in 2011

5) Lindenwood University - Belleville, red and gray alternating every five yards installed in 2012

6) Eastern Michigan, gray installed in 2014

7) Coastal Carolina, teal installed in 2015

So as you can see, the "alternative turf look" trend didn't really start until 2009 even though Boise State was the first in 1986. And this trend is only 6 years old and gets a school's football program TONS of publicity whenever they change their field to a non-green color, especially if it's something really unusual like the alternating colors of Central Arkansas and Lindenwood. Personally I like the non-green fields; it's something different and adds a little spice to the gridiron.

Believe it or not there is actually a page on Wikipedia dedicated to all college football fields that aren't green. That is where I got the above timeline, and there is lots more information about this phenomenon on this page. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_football_venues_with_non-traditional_field_colors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about Boise State's blue field being trademarked or patented and how that prevents other schools from having blue fields reminds me how the University of New Haven colored their field blue back in 2009 and Boise State made a stink about it and tried to stop it but they couldn't. And New Haven is Division II and Boise State STILL made a stink! Anyway New Haven still has a blue field to this day. But what makes me angry about this whole thing is why would New Haven want to be the *SECOND* school to have a blue football field when they could have been the first with a yellow field? (Their colors are blue and yellow.) Maybe they knew picking blue would piss off Boise State and they would get tons of publicity for it? That's probably the reason. All press is good press.

0e628b261f8f3075f817f9b5c268ffce.jpg

According to Wikipedia when New Haven announced it was changing their field to blue in 2009 they reached an agreement with Boise State that they would pay Boise for a license to get their blue field, and as part of that agreement their field is referred to as being "blue and yellow", not just blue. What I want to know is how the heck can Boise State own a trademark on ALL non-green football fields???? I could maybe understand if they could own a trademark just on blue fields, but how can they own a trademark on other colors when they only have a BLUE field? That doesn't make any sense to me. Then in 2009 New Haven gets the brilliant idea to get a blue field of their own and then Boise State initially wanted to stop them, but then realizes they can make money off of this and charges New Haven licensing fees for their *blue and YELLOW* field, not just blue. Pretty ridiculous! So Boise State throws 23 years of being the only school with a non-green football field out the window just so they can make money. The HELL with uniqueness, we can make cash off this thing! Blue fields for everybody!!!!

Here are the quotes from Wikipedia explaining all of this:

"Boise State holds a trademark on *any* non-green field, not just blue. It has licensed the right to use blue fields to several high schools as well as the University of New Haven, and also issues free licenses to any school or team that uses a color other than blue or orange, Boise State's school colors."

"New Haven and Boise State reached an agreement in 2009 to license the use of Boise State's trademark blue field. New Haven calls their field a "blue and yellow" field as part of the agreement."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative turf look has run its course.

Um... you DO know that "the alternative turf look" was started by Boise State in 1986 and no other school had a non-green football field until 2009 right? That's 23 years! Whatever trademarks or patents Boise State had must have been enough to scare other schools away from having non-green fields because if they got a blue field in 1986 you'd think some other schools would have installed a non-green field shortly after that. Nope. So it makes you wonder why it took 23 years for a non-green football field trend to start when Boise State was the first in '86.

Here is the complete timeline of non-green football fields:

1) Boise State, blue installed in 1986

2) University of New Haven, blue installed in 2009

3) Eastern Washington, red installed in 2010

4) Central Arkansas, purple and gray alternating every five yards installed in 2011

5) Lindenwood University - Belleville, red and gray alternating every five yards installed in 2012

6) Eastern Michigan, gray installed in 2014

7) Coastal Carolina, teal installed in 2015

So as you can see, the "alternative turf look" trend didn't really start until 2009 even though Boise State was the first in 1986. And this trend is only 6 years old and gets a school's football program TONS of publicity whenever they change their field to a non-green color, especially if it's something really unusual like the alternating colors of Central Arkansas and Lindenwood. Personally I like the non-green fields; it's something different and adds a little spice to the gridiron.

Believe it or not there is actually a page on Wikipedia dedicated to all college football fields that aren't green. That is where I got the above timeline, and there is lots more information about this phenomenon on this page. Check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_college_football_venues_with_non-traditional_field_colors

Maybe it took 23 years because people knew it looked like crap up until 09 when looking like crap started to become cool in college sports

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk about Boise State's blue field being trademarked or patented and how that prevents other schools from having blue fields reminds me how the University of New Haven colored their field blue back in 2009 and Boise State made a stink about it and tried to stop it but they couldn't. And New Haven is Division II and Boise State STILL made a stink! Anyway New Haven still has a blue field to this day. But what makes me angry about this whole thing is why would New Haven want to be the *SECOND* school to have a blue football field when they could have been the first with a yellow field? (Their colors are blue and yellow.) Maybe they knew picking blue would piss off Boise State and they would get tons of publicity for it? That's probably the reason. All press is good press.

0e628b261f8f3075f817f9b5c268ffce.jpg

According to Wikipedia when New Haven announced it was changing their field to blue in 2009 they reached an agreement with Boise State that they would pay Boise for a license to get their blue field, and as part of that agreement their field is referred to as being "blue and yellow", not just blue. What I want to know is how the heck can Boise State own a trademark on ALL non-green football fields???? I could maybe understand if they could own a trademark just on blue fields, but how can they own a trademark on other colors when they only have a BLUE field? That doesn't make any sense to me. Then in 2009 New Haven gets the brilliant idea to get a blue field of their own and then Boise State initially wanted to stop them, but then realizes they can make money off of this and charges New Haven licensing fees for their *blue and YELLOW* field, not just blue. Pretty ridiculous! So Boise State throws 23 years of being the only school with a non-green football field out the window just so they can make money. The HELL with uniqueness, we can make cash off this thing! Blue fields for everybody!!!!

Here are the quotes from Wikipedia explaining all of this:

"Boise State holds a trademark on *any* non-green field, not just blue. It has licensed the right to use blue fields to several high schools as well as the University of New Haven, and also issues free licenses to any school or team that uses a color other than blue or orange, Boise State's school colors."

"New Haven and Boise State reached an agreement in 2009 to license the use of Boise State's trademark blue field. New Haven calls their field a "blue and yellow" field as part of the agreement."

As described above, I think Boise State is bullying other schools into believing they have a valid US trademark over any non-green field. I base my opinion on two primary factors: First, as far as I can see on TESS, BSU's federal trademark registration only includes blue fields, which alone would be dispositive of the matter. Second, trademarks require use to be valid, and BSU has not used any color other than blue, so arguably, they never obtained rights to anything other than blue. Even if they somehow had obtained those rights, under the Lanham Act, 3 consecutive years of non-use create a rebuttable presumption of abandonment.

The counter-argument to the use factor is the BSU's trademark covers all non-green fields, so by using blue, the school is in fact using a non-green field. This argument extends the rights of a trademark holder far beyond their existing bounds. Trademark rights are obtained and maintained through use of the mark in commerce. Using a non-traditional color, shape, or term does not entitle the trademark holder to all non-traditional colors, shapes, or terms. The trademark holder is entitled to only what he or she uses.

Visit my store on REDBUBBLE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.