Puma challenge's Drury's use of logo

[Kess]

Today's Springfield (MO) News-Leader has an article on Puma challenging Drury University's leaping panther logo, saying the silhouette is too similar to its logo. You can read it here. Here are the logos in question:

Drury -

Puma -

I don't have a cat in the fight (so to speak), though I do have friends and family who obtained their degrees there. I think the logos are different enough that Drury should be in the clear. It's worth pointing out, too, that you rarely - if ever - see the leaping panther without the word "Drury" underneath it, cutting off its back paws.

Thoughts?

[gordie_delini]

ehh, I can see why Puma would be upset - they have such a larger brand magnification than Drury does that people who aren't logo savvy would look at that and immediately think Puma. But, as long as Drury appears beneath it, you really can't mistake the two, unless you're illiterate.

[Gothamite]

I would think that Jaguar Cars would have a better claim:

[Survival79]

[schlim]

Is that fourth jaguar Jacksonville's original logo?

And isn't the law for copyright violations 60%? (there has to be a 40% difference between two pieces of art to make them unique) Does anyone know anything about that?

[ElwoodCuse]

And isn't the law for copyright violations 60%? (there has to be a 40% difference between two pieces of art to make them unique) Does anyone know anything about that?

It's not anywhere in Title 17.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc..._sup_01_17.html

[schlim]

And isn't the law for copyright violations 60%? (there has to be a 40% difference between two pieces of art to make them unique) Does anyone know anything about that?

It's not anywhere in Title 17.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usc..._sup_01_17.html

Thanks for looking that up. Maybe its more a rule of thumb than anything else. Here's a page I just found that deals with copyright in a normal, easy to read yet informative way. It's a pretty great read for any artist or designer reading these boards. I didn't know a lot of these specifics:

http://www.co.clackamas.or.us/artsaction/copyright.htm

[meetthemets]

As much of a proponent to copyright protection that I am, not sure Puma has much of a case here. First of all, I've never heard of Drury University until just now. Second, I don't think the marks are similar enough to constitute someone being confused between the two. I think they would have a hard time convincing a court that the two are similar enough.

[conesbeans]

Whether or not you are "familiar with" one of the logos in question is not at all the issue when it comes to copyright infringement. When it comes to the law -- including intellectual property issues -- one is not allowed to use ignorance as an excuse ("But officer, I didn't KNOW the speed limit was only 25!").

In cases such as this, it all comes down to the old "opportunity for confusion," and when it is not an absolute direct rip-off (and the Drury logo is not a direct rip-off), there is the same gray area that is evidenced by the various opinions you can read in this thread.

You never know which way such things will go in court, but you do know that if it goes that far, it will end up costing both sides a good deal in legal fees. Hopefully they both have legal council already on staff.

By the way: Is Drury University located on Drury Lane, and do they know the Muffin Man?

[Jezus_Ghoti]

I am really glad Survival posted those silhouettes. There really aren't too many unique ways you can portray a pouncing cat's shape.

[meetthemets]

Whether or not you are "familiar with" one of the logos in question is not at all the issue when it comes to copyright infringement. When it comes to the law -- including intellectual property issues -- one is not allowed to use ignorance as an excuse ("But officer, I didn't KNOW the speed limit was only 25!").

That's not what I was saying. My point was that Drury is such an obscure institution that I can't imagine that Puma would designate a lot of resources to fighting something that no one has heard of, nor probably gives a :censored: about. It's not really similar enough to waste a lot of time on. Maybe they will. I guess that's their call.

[Gothamite]

I believe that if they do not protect their intellectual property in all cases, they cannot protect it in any case.

That's why the University of Wisconsin is going after high schools that use its "W".

[meetthemets]

I believe that if they do not protect their intellectual property in all cases, they cannot protect it in any case.

That's why the University of Wisconsin is going after high schools that use its "W".

That is true, however Wisconsin has a legitimate beef with a lot of schools who use their exact mark, or one that is almost identical. Not sure this case is as black & white as the Wisconsin case.

I'm not saying that Puma is wrong in trying to protect themselves, I just don't think there is enough evidence on their side to win. I clearly don't think Drury's mark was initially based on or similar enough to the Puma logo.

[Gothamite]

I agree with your assessment that it isn't similar enough, just pointing out that how "obscure" an institution is doesn't factor into the decision whether or not to litigate.

[Mingjai]

Puma might be using dilution of a famous mark (Lanham Act section 43) as its legal theory to get around proving likelihood of confusion:

17 USC section 1125c [Lanham Act section 43c]

Brief explanation of dilution

[meetthemets]

This has nothing to do with dilution. First, Drury University is the Panthers, not the Pumas. Secondly, they are not using an identical mark as their own as to confuse someone that Pumas is involved with them. If it was dilution of a famous mark then they would be using the same mark, which it is not.

Dilution is essentially taking something (a unique brand name such as "Exxon") that is "famous" or easily recognizable and repurposing (or "blurring") it in a non-competative market, such as coming out with a shoe line called "Exxon Shoes." If you came out with "Exxon Shoes," it would be a reasonable assumption to the average person that the Exxon oil company was coming out with a shoe line, or had something to do with it, even though they do not.

If they were the Drury Pumas, you could maybe argue that point to some extent but I still don't think this is anything close to a dilution argument.

[koizim]

Is that fourth jaguar Jacksonville's original logo?

And isn't the law for copyright violations 60%? (there has to be a 40% difference between two pieces of art to make them unique) Does anyone know anything about that?

Actually the fourth one is an unused Jacksonville Jaguars logo

[ElwoodCuse]

As much of a proponent to copyright protection that I am, not sure Puma has much of a case here. First of all, I've never heard of Drury University until just now. Second, I don't think the marks are similar enough to constitute someone being confused between the two. I think they would have a hard time convincing a court that the two are similar enough.

You are mixing up copyright law with trademark law. Trademark law is where likelihood of confusion is a factor.

[meetthemets]

You are mixing up copyright law with trademark law. Trademark law is where likelihood of confusion is a factor.

I meant trademark law, not copyright law.

[rtrich11]

Something tells me this all started when some art-illiterate Athletic Director told a designer "How about something like that Puma logo. I like that."