Group Effort To Discourage High Schools From Using Trademarked Logos?

[mark_lavis]

Has there ever been a group effort to discourage high schools and amateur sports teams from using copyrighted and trademarked logos instead of opting for an original design or a general design that is purposefully in the public domain? 

 

I don't mean from a shaming perspective but rather an educational perspective; informing schools about the benefits of using an original design rather than one in use by someone else. I believe that many high schools aren't using NFL logos for example having discussed with administrators in the past on the issue; some of whom thought their logo was original when in fact it was a straight copy-and-paste. 

 

Just curious if this has ever been attempted in the past and, if not, if anyone might be interested in something like this. 

[Sykotyk]

In my experience, high school athletics rarely sell merchandise with the exact logo as shown on team equipment. It's usually more stock wordmark/written/varsity script, etc in team colors. If a team used the Carolina Panthers, Detroit Lions, Philadelphia Eagles etc logo, it's rare to then see it on merchandise.

 

Secondly, most teams aren't going to see a huge need for an independent, individualized logo for merchandise/identity. The market just isn't there. And usually color swapping works fine. Creating 17,000+ individual logos will create a lot of overlap, anyways with slight variations simply because the depiction is still of something real.

[mark_lavis]

Right but having their own identity opens up the possibility of a wider variety of merchandise and items the school and booster clubs can sell/market with to the local community. I imagine NFL teams for example have large restrictions on schools directly profiting off of or displaying their marks in a certain manner which is why that's the case. 

 

My issue is, other than from a business perspective, using NFL team marks and other protected marks sets them up to seem indirectly hypocritical. This is what I always consider especially when the case involves a school.

 

A school has a set of core values and rules it teaches to students within the learning environment to make them better people. A major one, you here throughout elementary into high school and college especially is plagiarism and how adverse it is to learning and how negative it is in the grand scheme of things since it's the academic equivalent to stealing which is against the law. How, as a high school, are you assert your authority against plagiarism when, as a high school, you're plagiarizing someone else's work as your own; not even compensating them for it. Hell, at least with the case of most plagiarism cases in school, the person copying someone else's work is either 1) getting permission from the person they're taking from in the first place and 2) the individual has at least opened up his or her personal work to a specific audience (whether it be from their best friend to the entire Internet) in the first place to be willingly plagiarized. How are schools not setting a double standard where the administration and sports teams get to break the rules but the students are harshly penalized if they even break them by a tiny amount?

 

I see graphic designers online call out those who blatantly rip off their original works, as they should. Yet when it comes to the big guys like the people who crafted the NFL logos, no one bats an eyelash. I'm not saying we need 17,000+ brand new and indistinguishable logos sets for high schools across America, but I'd rather be okay with a bunch of schools use generic logos, that have been placed in the public domain in some manner, that have absolutely no established brand behind them and be able to make it there own rather than appear to be a lazy moocher with zero creative ability. Hard to feel creative and connected to your school at a personal level when you see it is the 103rd in the country using the Minnesota Vikings logo. 

[dont care]

simply schools to want to put money into having their own logo designed for them. If they can get students to do it which most do thats fine. but public schools that rely on public money aren't going to waste it on an athletic logo that they could simply take from another entity recolor quickly and use. High schools sell such little merchandise and in my entire time at high school (a private high school with its own logo) I never once saw said logo on any of our apparel, only our school name, mascot name, letters, and our seal, thats it. also you bring up plagiarism, this is not plagiarism in the slightest because in order for it to be they need to not sight their work. you will never get a school that uses the Broncos logo to say "ya that is totally our logo and we never took it from another team."

[Cujo]

Yea. Let's stick it to these guys too!!

 

[Sykotyk]

1 hour ago, mark_lavis said:

Right but having their own identity opens up the possibility of a wider variety of merchandise and items the school and booster clubs can sell/market with to the local community. I imagine NFL teams for example have large restrictions on schools directly profiting off of or displaying their marks in a certain manner which is why that's the case. 

 

The largest school is Allen (TX) with about 5,300 students (9-12) in a total population coverage of over 100,000 people. Most schools are much smaller than that. Public or private. My HS had about 450 students and covered a geographic territory of about 11,000 people. Our logo was done by an art teacher in the 80s. Before that, we used a blue/yellow Georgia/Green Bay G apparently but generally it's just a blank helmet and everything was in wordmark for merchandise, signage, etc.

 

And even with that logo, it is NEVER used on merchandise or signage. They put it on the field turf just installed. But merchandise is all purpose with the school name or nickname and usually the sport. Sometimes year-specific. Usually some clipart things like a football, basketball, etc.

 

There's about 1,500-2,000 that attend a football game on average. The amount of shirts or hats, etc, are very few. The school themselves doesn't even sell merchandise. It's entirely the booster club that does it.

 

1 hour ago, mark_lavis said:

My issue is, other than from a business perspective, using NFL team marks and other protected marks sets them up to seem indirectly hypocritical. This is what I always consider especially when the case involves a school.

 

Trademark isn't ironclad. The school's wouldn't be doing it if not allowed. It's not like "Green Bay High School" is yellow and green and goes by the name "Packers" with a circle G on their helmet. Part of trademark is showing that you are not confusing potential customers with your logo. It's not like Tiide Detergent or Pepsi-Cota soft drinks. It's "Edison Wildcats" or "Girard Indians" with a slightly similar helmet or athletic logo. Usually entirely color-different.

 

1 hour ago, mark_lavis said:

A school has a set of core values and rules it teaches to students within the learning environment to make them better people. A major one, you here throughout elementary into high school and college especially is plagiarism and how adverse it is to learning and how negative it is in the grand scheme of things since it's the academic equivalent to stealing which is against the law. How, as a high school, are you assert your authority against plagiarism when, as a high school, you're plagiarizing someone else's work as your own; not even compensating them for it. Hell, at least with the case of most plagiarism cases in school, the person copying someone else's work is either 1) getting permission from the person they're taking from in the first place and 2) the individual has at least opened up his or her personal work to a specific audience (whether it be from their best friend to the entire Internet) in the first place to be willingly plagiarized. How are schools not setting a double standard where the administration and sports teams get to break the rules but the students are harshly penalized if they even break them by a tiny amount?

 

Breaking the 'rules' is entirely subjective. If I cut across a swath of grass on my way from my parking spot to my work every day and one day somebody tells me that's someone's property and I shouldn't do it... was I trespassing? If the trademark holder had an issue with it, they could dispute it.

 

And it's not like the USPTO doesn't put the onus of trademark protection on the trademark holder. Defend it or lose it is the USPTO's general thought. Same reason why Xerox and Kleenex have had to fight for years to get people to call it "copiers" or "tissues" since their trademarked name had become ubiquitous with their core product.

 

If Carolina Panthers want to maintain their trademark, they'd have to defend it where defensible. They can't just turn a blind eye. Either  permission needs to be granted, or not allowing further use (if applicable) would be needed. A trademark holding entity can't just go 'eh' and let things slide under their nose uncontested or someone else will use that tacit approval as proof when the trademark really is harshly infringed.

 

1 hour ago, mark_lavis said:

I see graphic designers online call out those who blatantly rip off their original works, as they should. Yet when it comes to the big guys like the people who crafted the NFL logos, no one bats an eyelash. I'm not saying we need 17,000+ brand new and indistinguishable logos sets for high schools across America, but I'd rather be okay with a bunch of schools use generic logos, that have been placed in the public domain in some manner, that have absolutely no established brand behind them and be able to make it there own rather than appear to be a lazy moocher with zero creative ability. Hard to feel creative and connected to your school at a personal level when you see it is the 103rd in the country using the Minnesota Vikings logo. 

 

You see people STEAL their work and pass it as their own. They CLAIM ownership of the mark that someone else made. If some podunk team sees a logo some designer made and then puts it on their gear or shirts or helmets, etc, and say "this is OUR logo, we did this" then that's an issue. When some rec league team puts a Chief Wahoo on their helmet, whether affiliated with MLB or not, they're not claiming the word mark is theirs and start printing off Cleveland Indians shirts with a smiling Chief Wahoo.

 

Sometimes people confuse plaigarism (I made this) with use (I like this and am using it for my own purposes). The latter can be unlawful, but there are ways that similar use is lawful (fair use) or overtly vague marks (such as Microsoft trying to trademark "Windows" rather than "Microsoft Windows"). There's also 'attempting to deceive'. No HS playing on Friday night that has a flyer with a Philadelphia eagle head on the flier is going to confuse someone into thinking the Philadelphia Eagles are playing at a 3,000 seat stadium for only $6 a ticket.

[mark_lavis]

3 hours ago, dont care said:

simply schools to want to put money into having their own logo designed for them. If they can get students to do it which most do thats fine. but public schools that rely on public money aren't going to waste it on an athletic logo that they could simply take from another entity recolor quickly and use. High schools sell such little merchandise and in my entire time at high school (a private high school with its own logo) I never once saw said logo on any of our apparel, only our school name, mascot name, letters, and our seal, thats it. also you bring up plagiarism, this is not plagiarism in the slightest because in order for it to be they need to not sight their work. you will never get a school that uses the Broncos logo to say "ya that is totally our logo and we never took it from another team."

 "they need not sight their work". Taking out the major league teams from the equation, I'm pretty sure most people in the country don't know what Towson University's logo is. I'm pretty sure most people in the country don't know what Utah Valley University's logo is. I'm damn no one almost everyone can't picture the Quebec Citadelles or Port Huron Pirates logos were. And yet I've seen high schools use each and everyone of these logos with the respect fanbases and sometimes administration completely oblivious to the fact they're school is using an unoriginal logo and, because of that, believe it is their own. 

 

"High schools sell such little merchandise and in my entire time at high school (a private high school with its own logo) I never once saw said logo on any of our apparel, only our school name, mascot name, letters, and our seal, thats it." I don't imagine that the merch market for each school is equal, varying case-by-case. I bet though, at a place like Hoover HS in Alabama where major dollars are going toward the football booster club, they're making a pretty penny using the old NY/NJ Hitmen logo. 

 

It shouldn't matter how much they make. If I go out and sell a Seattle Seahawks logo shirt and make only $100 off of them, the Seahawks aren't going to give me a pass and say "Well, it's not like they're going to make much money off of us. Let's let them keep using our logo and not send them a cease-and-desist letter. After all, the shirts are building our brand awareness." 

[mark_lavis]

1 hour ago, Cujo said:

Yea. Let's stick it to these guys too!!

 

 

Right, because in my post about high schools using trademarked logos, I forgot I went after peewee football teams as well, who by no means are run by academic institutes that preach an anti-plagiarism and anti-theft message. I totally forgot. Thank you for reminding me, Internet commenter.

 

I get you were trying to be semi-humorous with your retort but next time, find a better hole to expose in my argument. 

[mark_lavis]

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

 

The largest school is Allen (TX) with about 5,300 students (9-12) in a total population coverage of over 100,000 people. Most schools are much smaller than that. Public or private. My HS had about 450 students and covered a geographic territory of about 11,000 people. Our logo was done by an art teacher in the 80s. Before that, we used a blue/yellow Georgia/Green Bay G apparently but generally it's just a blank helmet and everything was in wordmark for merchandise, signage, etc.

 

And even with that logo, it is NEVER used on merchandise or signage. They put it on the field turf just installed. But merchandise is all purpose with the school name or nickname and usually the sport. Sometimes year-specific. Usually some clipart things like a football, basketball, etc.

 

There's about 1,500-2,000 that attend a football game on average. The amount of shirts or hats, etc, are very few. The school themselves doesn't even sell merchandise. It's entirely the booster club that does it.

 

 

Then why even utilize the G if the schools not going to use it properly. I get most high school athletic equipment only has the school name and/the nickname on it. My school only used our athletic logo on football helmet along with a few pieces of signage. My golf equipment only had our school's name and nickname on them. 

 

If that's the case though, why use it in the first place? If a school uses a trademarked logo that little, they have no business using it in the first place if they have a suitable crest. The space for a logo on the 50 yard line is pretty big. You can't tell me that the school can't put their crest out there. If they don't have a crest, use a letter/s from a public domain font rather a letter that's actually trademarked. Pretty sure your school can find a alright G replacement for the Georgia/Green Bay/Grambling State "G" if that's all it's going to use the G for. 

 

It shouldn't matter if its the booster club. If it directly coordinates with a program run by a school and through that coordination helps fund a program then it should be held to the same standards the school has. If it were an outside entity (like if I wanted, on my spare time, to set up an online shop and sell local high school apparel through it without ever communicating/coordination with the schools) then it's a different story and schools themselves can't be held responsible. However, boosters clubs are not that. Just Google what's going on with Bellevue HS in WA right now. Booster clubs ARE the sports teams they represent which ARE part of the school. 

 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

Trademark isn't ironclad. The school's wouldn't be doing it if not allowed. It's not like "Green Bay High School" is yellow and green and goes by the name "Packers" with a circle G on their helmet. Part of trademark is showing that you are not confusing potential customers with your logo. It's not like Tide Detergent or Pepsi-Cola soft drinks. It's "Edison Wildcats" or "Girard Indians" with a slightly similar helmet or athletic logo. Usually entirely color-different.

 

Fun Fact: Green Bay West HS look to be using the Ohio University bobcat logo and I bet nowhere on the school's website to they say that. Sure they made it all silver (I personally think it's too much grey/silver) but I recognize as the OU logo. Color is a component of design but if I take the Seattle Seahawks logo and make it all-red, am I 1) creating a new logo that no one would ask "Is that the Seattle Seahawks logo?" toward or 2) am I creating brand dilution, however minor, by making at least one person believe this is a new logo which by law is a case of trademark infringement. Trust me, "beyond reasonable doubt" when it comes to confusion over a trademark is something very hard to prove in law. I read case studies in college where it seemed absolutely moronic that the plaintiff won because they were able to prove the possibility of some damage MIGHT have occurred because it's hard for the defendant to prove otherwise. Think of the Gawker vs Hulk Hogan case (I know that doesn't involve trademark but the structure is similar). 

 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

 

Breaking the 'rules' is entirely subjective. If I cut across a swath of grass on my way from my parking spot to my work every day and one day somebody tells me that's someone's property and I shouldn't do it... was I trespassing? If the trademark holder had an issue with it, they could dispute it.

 

1) Was there any signage posted stating "No Trespassing" or any barriers around the property the would give off the clear impression it was private property? 2) Was the "somebody" the property owner? Technically yes, especially if 1) was a yes, but unless you caused some sort of noticeable damage to the grass, it'd get thrown out in court. In the future, if the "somebody" was the property owner, then yes it would be enforceable for there on out. 

 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

 

And it's not like the USPTO doesn't put the onus of trademark protection on the trademark holder. Defend it or lose it is the USPTO's general thought. Same reason why Xerox and Kleenex have had to fight for years to get people to call it "copiers" or "tissues" since their trademarked name had become ubiquitous with their core product.

 

If Carolina Panthers want to maintain their trademark, they'd have to defend it where defensible. They can't just turn a blind eye. Either  permission needs to be granted, or not allowing further use (if applicable) would be needed. A trademark holding entity can't just go 'eh' and let things slide under their nose uncontested or someone else will use that tacit approval as proof when the trademark really is harshly infringed.

 

 

That's why cease and desist letters are a thing. Unless it's something egregious and the trademark holder believes the individual/group made a considerable amount of money off their trademark before the holder was able to issue a cease and desist letter (think a copyrighted song used in a nationwide ad without the song owner's permission and they issued a cease and desist within a day or two for example) then they'd take you to court and they'd have a case. Otherwise, CDs are essentially first and final warnings in law in the majority of cases considering the amount of money a trademark holder would have to pay to attorneys to fight you in court for back payments. No trademark holder is going to do that if the infringer possibly made less than a day's salary for a minimum wage worker from the mark.

 

Also, "permission" needs to be a bit more concrete than 1) Noticing School A is using the Panthers logo and 2) Contacting School A staying don't worry. There needs to be limits. There especially needs to be a written contract otherwise I could troll the crap out of teams who let schools willy-nilly use their mark. I mean hell, if the NFL is alright with a blanket statement (I know this is not likely the case, I'm just building a straw man because it's 1:30am and I need to entertain myself to finish the rest of this reply) about allowing high schools to use their mark then I'm going to establish Seattle High School, a fictitious school I set up in a story I came up with and I'm going to sell shirts with an exact copy of the Seahawks logo it with the text "Seattle" above and "High School" below it. See, how could someone be confused by that? 

 

The Internet however is a LARGE place. Doesn't it behove us all to help out whenever we come across a school using a trademark and 1) Questioning if they have permission and 2) potentially notifying the trademark holder to make sure they're on the same page. That's a moral dilemma though I can't force down your throat. 

 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

You see people STEAL their work and pass it as their own. They CLAIM ownership of the mark that someone else made. If some podunk team sees a logo some designer made and then puts it on their gear or shirts or helmets, etc, and say "this is OUR logo, we did this" then that's an issue. When some rec league team puts a Chief Wahoo on their helmet, whether affiliated with MLB or not, they're not claiming the word mark is theirs and start printing off Cleveland Indians shirts with a smiling Chief Wahoo.

 

By sheer impression alone, a school is saying that a logo is theres (removing widely known logos from the equation) by not acknowledging that it isn't 100% original. When have you ever seen a logo for a business or team you've never seen before or remember seeing and think "I wonder who they took this from?" Unless they have a reputation otherwise, like with satire and fair use law (hence why a show like SNL can copy a Fortune 500's business identity exactly and get away with it), schools have to clearly state and disclose whenever and wherever applicable (like on the school's website for example) that their logo is a copy/edit of another logo that is under trademark protection. 

 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

Sometimes people confuse plaigarism (I made this) with use (I like this and am using it for my own purposes). The latter can be unlawful, but there are ways that similar use is lawful (fair use) or overtly vague marks (such as Microsoft trying to trademark "Windows" rather than "Microsoft Windows"). There's also 'attempting to deceive'.

 

Schools are not using these logos under fair use law so let's remove that from the argument (I did extensive research papers in fair use law at university not too long ago so I don't want to relive my nightmares so soon). Plagiarism of these logos is largely a cause and effect. They aren't actively plagiarizing, i.e. 'attempting to deceive', but rather implicitly. Rather than stating "we are using the logo of the Port Huron Pirates", schools are mostly leaving the burden on the consumer or the local citizen to know that themselves. In the same way that a trademark holder has to actively protect their trademark, a school has to show they actively made sure they were not infringing on anyone's trademark.

 

1 hour ago, Sykotyk said:

No HS playing on Friday night that has a flyer with a Philadelphia eagle head on the flier is going to confuse someone into thinking the Philadelphia Eagles are playing at a 3,000 seat stadium for only $6 a ticket.

 

And no one is going to think a run-down auto body shop in the middle of Nova Scotia who uses the Nike logo thinks that the shop is owned and operated by Nike. It doesn't matter because BY LAW it's still a form or trademark infringement and a case of brand dilution, however minuscule it might be. Maybe your HS's game is sponsored by the Philadelphia Eagles. Maybe the HS football team's equipment were paid for by the Philadelphia Eagles. Maybe the Philadelphia Eagles fund the entire athletic program. I can go on...

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

How about a situation in which a high school is using an established logo for its football team, but is not producing any merchandise?

 

Like, imagine that the school puts an NFL team's logo or a college's logo (or, indeed, a Major League Baseball team's logo) on its helmets, and then uses officially licenced caps for its coaches, staff, and players. Imagine further that the school's supporters do the same, just going down to the local hat store and buying the pro or college team's hat there. And, due to the availability of hats in a variety of colours, maybe the school and its supporters use a Philadelphia Eagles hat in red, or an Atlanta Braves hat in green.

 

In that case, the school is not asserting any ownership over the established logo, even if that logo takes on a special meaning in the local context, analogous to how Raiders hats and Chicago Bulls hats, in some setting, indicate affiliation with particular gangs.

 

(Side note: I hope that it's clear that I am not attempting to disparage any high schools by comparing them to gangs. Neither am I making any point at all about the gangs themselves. I am just mentioning a situation wherein a logo is known to belong to a pro team, but nevertheless has another significance within a given community.)

 

In such a case, not only is the school not making any money from the pro or college logo, but it is increasing the money that the rights-holders are making by buying officially licenced products and by encouraging the purchase of those products by the school's supporters.

 

 

 

 

[Gothamite]

The NFL has said that they're okay with schools using (not selling) their logos, so long as they don't color-swap.  For just that reason.  

 

Color-swapping, though, is simple and blatant theft.

[Ferdinand Cesarano]

2 hours ago, Gothamite said:

The NFL has said that they're okay with schools using (not selling) their logos, so long as they don't color-swap.  For just that reason.  

 

Color-swapping, though, is simple and blatant theft.

 

I didn't know about the NFL's policy against colour-swapping.

But, notwithstanding that policy, it seems wrong to call colour-swapping theft if the colour-swapped product is an officially licenced one.

[Gothamite]

If their only use of the logo is on merchandise that they buy from the NFL, then I would argue that it's not theft.  

 

If they use the color-swapped logo in any other way, such as making tshirts to match those fashion caps, then it is. The whole point of the NFL's policy is to drive sales to their own shops. 

 

I would also argue that even printing up schedules or flyers with the color-swapped logo is theft, since it runs counter to the NFL's policy. They give youth teams an option for use, those teams should be grateful and should respect the limitations placed upon it. 

[Sykotyk]

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

 

Then why even utilize the G if the schools not going to use it properly. I get most high school athletic equipment only has the school name and/the nickname on it. My school only used our athletic logo on football helmet along with a few pieces of signage. My golf equipment only had our school's name and nickname on them. 

 

That's rather pretentious to decide what is 'proper' use. That's the way they wanted it. Again, though, they haven't used it since the 80s and generally just have a blank blue shell with white/yellow/white helmet stripe with blue showing between the three.

 

Part of 'using it properly' is based on ability. Most schools do not own their own print shop. Anything complicated equals cost. Simple wordmarks in team/school colors is more than sufficient. You're not going to up the cost of a shirt sold at a game or from the school to the students or used by the school for its sports teams by making it any more costly than needed.

 

Simple = = Cheap

 

Also the argument for why schools don't break the bank to have a custom logo made. Cost.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

If that's the case though, why use it in the first place? If a school uses a trademarked logo that little, they have no business using it in the first place if they have a suitable crest. The space for a logo on the 50 yard line is pretty big. You can't tell me that the school can't put their crest out there. If they don't have a crest, use a letter/s from a public domain font rather a letter that's actually trademarked. Pretty sure your school can find a alright G replacement for the Georgia/Green Bay/Grambling State "G" if that's all it's going to use the G for. 

 

Again. Cost. Putting a logo or writing on turf is expensive. More colors, more cost. It's why a lot of high schools use blank endzones. My alma mater put down blue endzones with yellow writing and a logo at the 50. Which is the one done by the art teacher years ago.

 

As stated, the G was only used on helmets for a short time in the 80s. Why did they use the Packers/Georgia G? Maybe availability. Maybe symmetry. Maybe that's who their supplier had access to sell them the decals. No clue why.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

It shouldn't matter if its the booster club. If it directly coordinates with a program run by a school and through that coordination helps fund a program then it should be held to the same standards the school has. If it were an outside entity (like if I wanted, on my spare time, to set up an online shop and sell local high school apparel through it without ever communicating/coordination with the schools) then it's a different story and schools themselves can't be held responsible. However, boosters clubs are not that. Just Google what's going on with Bellevue HS in WA right now. Booster clubs ARE the sports teams they represent which ARE part of the school. 

 

They still are a legal entity separate from the school. They may get the blessing of the HS or SD to operate on school grounds during competitions, but the legality and responsibility ends there. Partly one of the reasons why such arrangements are made. It also allows for 'quick decisions' that a school board or AD just isn't capable of making with a plethora of parents to argue with.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

Fun Fact: Green Bay West HS look to be using the Ohio University bobcat logo and I bet nowhere on the school's website to they say that. Sure they made it all silver (I personally think it's too much grey/silver) but I recognize as the OU logo. Color is a component of design but if I take the Seattle Seahawks logo and make it all-red, am I 1) creating a new logo that no one would ask "Is that the Seattle Seahawks logo?" toward or 2) am I creating brand dilution, however minor, by making at least one person believe this is a new logo which by law is a case of trademark infringement. Trust me, "beyond reasonable doubt" when it comes to confusion over a trademark is something very hard to prove in law. I read case studies in college where it seemed absolutely moronic that the plaintiff won because they were able to prove the possibility of some damage MIGHT have occurred because it's hard for the defendant to prove otherwise. Think of the Gawker vs Hulk Hogan case (I know that doesn't involve trademark but the structure is similar). 

 

 

And many might think the Nationals logo looks like Walgreens. But, I doubt anyone assumes Walgreens owns the team or vice versa.  Sometimes, it's just similarity. I remember a few years ago on this very site there was a logo fanatic who felt any rounded logo that ended into a point was ripping off the Detroit Red Wings' winged wheel (Flyers, oilers flying oil drop, Capitals swooping eagle, etc).

 

That's part of the problem as well. At what level does similarity begin and stolen logo end? If a team names themselves "Eagles" or "Bears" or "Tigers" there's limited ability with what you can do. Along with color options. Remember, there's over 16,000 high school teams in the U.S. There's even more rec league, little league, etc teams. You're going to see similarities. Even if someone wants to maintain no relation to another logo, a logo of a tiger in black and orange is going to look similar to the other several hundred logos of tigers in black and orange. One entity can't claim 'any depiction of a tiger in orange/black is ours and ours alone'. But, then how similar does it need to be? To the pixel? Or just vague representation? Somewhere in between? Where?

 

Where does one logo end and another 'new' logo begin? If I got the idea to make a Tiger logo and I say at the start, "I don't want it to look like the Cincinnati Bengals leaping tiger logo" I've already started at that logo. If it's just to change it enough for it NOT to be that logo or be similar. I still started at that point.

 

So even origination can't be argued. If Coca-Cola wants to market a new product of sugar lemon-lime drink on par with Mountain Dew and Sierra Mist but want to make sure they DON'T make it too similar to Mountain Dew, they'd still have started on the basis of what Mountain Dew's logo is. Even if their intention is to NOT be that.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

1) Was there any signage posted stating "No Trespassing" or any barriers around the property the would give off the clear impression it was private property? 2) Was the "somebody" the property owner? Technically yes, especially if 1) was a yes, but unless you caused some sort of noticeable damage to the grass, it'd get thrown out in court. In the future, if the "somebody" was the property owner, then yes it would be enforceable for there on out. 

 

 

No/No. What difference does it make? The government's basis of abiding the law is 'ignorance of the law is not an excuse from it'. Trespassing is trespassing. It's the person cutting across the lawn to know whether they're allowed to or not. If the person is just informing you as a third party (in similar vain to you want a group effort to discourage high schools from using trademarked logos), it still doesn't discount the fact you're trespassing. But it also carries no weight.

 

If you tell someone "don't use this logo, make your own" the most common response is, "Is this your logo?" not "Oh, I guess I should use another one."

 

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

That's why cease and desist letters are a thing. Unless it's something egregious and the trademark holder believes the individual/group made a considerable amount of money off their trademark before the holder was able to issue a cease and desist letter (think a copyrighted song used in a nationwide ad without the song owner's permission and they issued a cease and desist within a day or two for example) then they'd take you to court and they'd have a case. Otherwise, CDs are essentially first and final warnings in law in the majority of cases considering the amount of money a trademark holder would have to pay to attorneys to fight you in court for back payments. No trademark holder is going to do that if the infringer possibly made less than a day's salary for a minimum wage worker from the mark.

So, why do you want to help prosper another entity at the expense of your own time, energy and effort? It's the road-rage culture reduced to trademarks. Taking the matter into your own hands to be the authority on what is and what isn't allowed.

 

If someone has a logo worth protecting, they'll protect it. If I own something valuable. I keep it safe. I lock my doors. Have a safe. Am careful with it when using or showing it, etc. I don't strap it to the hood of my car and park in bad neighborhood for a few hours on a Friday night in an unlit area.

 

I don't expect some community activist to stand beside my car warding off the criminals intent on stealing my valuables I've left exposed and unprotected.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

Also, "permission" needs to be a bit more concrete than 1) Noticing School A is using the Panthers logo and 2) Contacting School A staying don't worry. There needs to be limits. There especially needs to be a written contract otherwise I could troll the crap out of teams who let schools willy-nilly use their mark. I mean hell, if the NFL is alright with a blanket statement (I know this is not likely the case, I'm just building a straw man because it's 1:30am and I need to entertain myself to finish the rest of this reply) about allowing high schools to use their mark then I'm going to establish Seattle High School, a fictitious school I set up in a story I came up with and I'm going to sell shirts with an exact copy of the Seahawks logo it with the text "Seattle" above and "High School" below it. See, how could someone be confused by that? 

 

Obviously. I didn't intend to imply permission was that simple. I just didn't feel like writing out the paragraph you just did.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

The Internet however is a LARGE place. Doesn't it behove us all to help out whenever we come across a school using a trademark and 1) Questioning if they have permission and 2) potentially notifying the trademark holder to make sure they're on the same page. That's a moral dilemma though I can't force down your throat. 

 

 

Exactly. Because the internet is a large place. Imagine you sat in your front yard with an item. An item you probably wouldn't be expected to have. How annoyed would you be with every passing car to stop and ask you if you have the right to possess that valuable item?

 

Because there's that many potential people questioning them as there are that many potential people that could steal someone else's intellectual property. It's the Simpsons episode all over again:

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

By sheer impression alone, a school is saying that a logo is theres (removing widely known logos from the equation) by not acknowledging that it isn't 100% original. When have you ever seen a logo for a business or team you've never seen before or remember seeing and think "I wonder who they took this from?" Unless they have a reputation otherwise, like with satire and fair use law (hence why a show like SNL can copy a Fortune 500's business identity exactly and get away with it), schools have to clearly state and disclose whenever and wherever applicable (like on the school's website for example) that their logo is a copy/edit of another logo that is under trademark protection. 

 

 

And who says they don't? Who says it must be on a website? Why not in fine print (gotta love legalese) on a pamphlet taped to a wall in a common area of the school? Or, maybe wait until someone shows up to the school complaining that they felt duped by the logo into thinking the Port Huron Pirates suddenly were playing basketball at a high school before going through with notifying the general public.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

Schools are not using these logos under fair use law so let's remove that from the argument (I did extensive research papers in fair use law at university not too long ago so I don't want to relive my nightmares so soon). Plagiarism of these logos is largely a cause and effect. They aren't actively plagiarizing, i.e. 'attempting to deceive', but rather implicitly. Rather than stating "we are using the logo of the Port Huron Pirates", schools are mostly leaving the burden on the consumer or the local citizen to know that themselves. In the same way that a trademark holder has to actively protect their trademark, a school has to show they actively made sure they were not infringing on anyone's trademark.

 

 

Never said they were. Just that there is more to trademark law than being ironclad. And with all legalities, everything is up for negotiation. Regardless what position you might take or what bargaining power you have.

 

But, I think trademark is much more simple than that in the eyes of the common public. When trademarks were first established as a protected entity by the federal government (they were in some form already established by the states individually), I don't think people would realize the ubiquity of trademarks in the 21st century. A mercantile shop in 1870 probably was indistinguishable from another except by its name and its location. Pretending to be a proprietor of that shop was more or less direct fraud rather than implied deceit.

 

There wasn't fans of a particular store walking around with "Bobs Five and Dime" ballcaps on that might confuse people from Robert's Five and Dime that they were one and the same.

 

Today, however, most little kids already recognize logos in and of themselves. Maybe moreso than the entity that they represent. However, as you age you very early on recognize that the big red and yellow roofed building is McDonalds and not the guy trying to sell burritos out of the trunk of his car. People are smart about logos. They notice similarities because the way the brain remembers things. How close does a similarity have to be before it becomes an issue?

 

Is McDowell's from "Coming To America" too close to McDonalds or not close enough? Would someone necessarily have an issue differentiating them? Maybe someone who is illiterate. Or someone with bad vision. But, even given the overt similarity, most people would differentiate that it is not, in fact, McDonalds or associated with McDonalds.

 

However, no one will confuse McDonalds Auto Body for a place to grab a Big Mac. No matter how similar the logo.

 

There's also the creeping nature of trademark. In the 20s-30s-40s etc, it wasn't uncommon for sports teams in a city to share the same nickname. Even colors as well. Simply because no one would confuse the New York Giants baseball team and the New York Giants football team. They're different entities and sell/promote/ticket different things.

 

Anyone even vaguely familiar with the NFL wouldn't confuse a high school with them if their logos of one were similar or a direct transition from one to another. The problem is, trademark never considered how logos would become 'the norm' over the name. The name, itself, becomes meaningless. It's the logo that matters. The problem is, there is no application of how specific that logo must be before its 'the same'. If a team registers a logo, if it's shaded slightly, is it still theirs? If it's in a negative? Infrared? Tilted, slanted, curved, crinkled, textured, enlarged, shrunken, part, whole, encompassed, or sublimated.

 

At what point does your ownership of a trademark end. If you print your trademark with a printer with a bad printer head and suddenly the yellow looks a little orange, but you want to still distribute the iconography, did you release your logo or did you just create a new one with a different color palette?

 

If you are printing something off and the printer smudged the point where two outside lines come together and forms a small spike of black... is that still the same logo? What if the whole logo gets smeared into an unrecognizable blob. You intended it to be your logo... could you still claim anyone copying 'the blob' as yours? Or is it entirely new, even if intended to be your originally trademarked graphic? Would it be the same mark, or a new mark? Trademarked, or not trademarked?

 

I can see why the NFL is so particular about their suppliers getting things right. The slightest imperfection could be cause to say it's not the original logo. Color variation, slanting, angling, etc. Not saying it would, but could is all the NFL or any other league might need to lose their claim to a variant.

 

15 hours ago, mark_lavis said:

And no one is going to think a run-down auto body shop in the middle of Nova Scotia who uses the Nike logo thinks that the shop is owned and operated by Nike. It doesn't matter because BY LAW it's still a form or trademark infringement and a case of brand dilution, however minuscule it might be. Maybe your HS's game is sponsored by the Philadelphia Eagles. Maybe the HS football team's equipment were paid for by the Philadelphia Eagles. Maybe the Philadelphia Eagles fund the entire athletic program. I can go on...

 

Again. It's not your judgement to make. No more than is it your job to protect my house or property or anyone else's. It's the property owners' responsibility. Sure, you might call the police if there's something suspicious happening on your neighbor's property, but you wouldn't patrol the town acting as your own law enforcement.

 

And sure, you could argue if you're an artist or graphic designer that someone using a logo means the value of authentic art is limited, but it could also be the value of authentic art is already limited. If you charge $5000 for a logo, it doesn't mean everyone wanting a logo will pay that for your 'quality' of art. In the halcyon days of your dreamt world of no trademark infringement, you wouldn't suddenly see a spike in successful graphic designers. You'd simply see more 'bad' art used for logos. Because the market isn't there.

 

When the RIAA or MPAA rails against online sharing sites, they also state perceived losses in accordance to the originally priced production of said work. A CD copied was a $15 loss, or so. A movie, about $19, or so. Not accounting for the fact that many who stream or download content had no intention of ever watching the movie if they had to make the financial expenditure to do so.

 

For instance, if you have an intellectual property that you charge $20 to see, and I don't want to see it for anything above 'free', I'm not going to pay for it, whether I find it for free or not. If the barriers are so unbreachable that I can't watch it for free, then I simply wouldn't watch it. It's not a 'net loss' for you. Even if you perceive it as one.

 

The fact someone uses work in a way unintended or uncompensated is proof the work is overpriced or artificially inaccessible. It's not proof that you've lost potential revenue or profit.

 

It's not your fight. It's not your call. It's the call of a dying industry trying to figure out how to shoehorn the internet into 1980s thinking. It just doesn't work. Evolve or die. And that includes anyone that makes an artistic expression and doesn't keep it to themselves offline.

 

[LAWeaver]

^^^

 

[dont care]

[Sec19Row53]

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 9:42 AM, Gothamite said:

The NFL has said that they're okay with schools using (not selling) their logos, so long as they don't color-swap.  For just that reason.  

 

Color-swapping, though, is simple and blatant theft.

Is this one of those policies that we "know", or is it posted somewhere? 

 

This thread is interesting in that it gets at a similar thought process to a question I asked in General Design a short time ago.

[Gothamite]

I'm pretty sure they came out and said it at one point, but I'll see if I can find a source. 

 

EDIT: okay, I've got it.  We established it in a thread a long time back:

 

So as of seven years ago, this was the league's policy: 

 

NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said his organization is "deeply committed" to supporting youth football and does not have a problem with high school programs adopting and using NFL team logos.

"We simply ask that the schools do not alter or change the color of the logos, " he said. The organization also asks high schools not to sell merchandise in a manner that would lead fans to believe it is officially licensed by the NFL or the team, he said.

[smzimbabwe]

To the best of my knowledge, none of the high schools in my league had any sort of copied logos, but now I'm curious will have to check my yearbooks for photos. And all sports through middle school were sponsored by local companies, so even though we were the Warriors, we had a sponsor and had their logos on our uniforms and it was different from sport to sport. Back then, uniform day was exciting because not only did you get your number, but you got to see who your sponsor was. 

[AstroCree]

I went to a small HS and our team was called the Panthers. We never used a "Panther" logo from any professional team, our logo was fan made from within the school. With that in mind, the hat for the baseball team was just the Pittsburgh Pirates hat with a Green P because our school color was Green and White.

 

I remember being disappointed when my friend showed me. I said, "If everything else is original, why not the hat?"