Trojans Strip Gamecocks of "SC" mark

[Cola]

Link To Article

I just don't get it...the logos look nothing alike besides the fact that they include the same letters. They interlocking in a different way, they are different colors, and different fonts- what is so similar that one has to bow down to the other?

Never mind that the University of South Carolina was established before California was even a STATE in this nation (by about half a century!). We only use the interlocking SC logo for baseball, and I personally think it is one great looking logo that goes very nice with a great uniform set for a nationally great baseball team.

So they have a problem with this:

How come no one complains about the Mets and Yankees using almost the exact logo but with a color change and serifs? Or Ok State having an issue with Ohio State? Or Texas and Tennessee- they even both use orange!

I just don't understand how they can legally make this decision...I mean, the abbreviation of the state for South Carolina is...SC.

[RyanB06]

The Mets and Yankees' cap logos are identical only in that they're both an interlocking NY. That's it.

On the other hand, USC has invested a lot of money in its "SC" identity, while South Carolina hasn't. Look no further than your sig for proof of that.

[Cola]

The Mets and Yankees' cap logos are identical only in that they're both an interlocking NY. That's it.

On the other hand, USC has invested a lot of money in its "SC" identity, while South Carolina hasn't. Look no further than your sig for proof of that.

So you are telling me that you think the interlocking SC's are closer in overall appearance than the Mets and Yankees NY's? They interlock in the same exact spot.

Are you referring to the text on the jerseys? I'd guess it would be easier for us to use "CAROLINA" on the chest..."SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" is a tad bulky. We happen to use "USC", "SC" and "Carolina" in many ways and I don't see it as a bad thing that we don't completely push one...although "SC" is probably the lesser used. Yet, the issue lies in the logos above and I don't see it at all.

[chuckymack]

I'm failing to understand the similarities here. Sure, they both use 'SC', but that's about it. Seems kinda like overkill on Southern Cal's part to me.

[Gothamite]

Well, apparently Southern California did register it first. And South Carolina stopped using the initials for a decade, so they it's not surprising that it lost control of them.

According to the ruling, under trademark law three years of non-use constitutes abandonment. Use it or lose it. Which is why, the LA Times notes, that the Trojans make a limited production run of "Southern Cal" merchandise, even though they hate the nickname the way San Franciscans hate "Frisco." If they don't keep the trademark, then somebody else can register it.

And the article's graphic notwithstanding, this is the one that Southern California uses for baseball, which is what the Gamecocks were looking to register theirs for:

Much closer than the diagonal "SC" the trojans use elsewhere.

[gingerbreadmann]

I'm gonna have to side with USC(damn it!) because the University of Southern California seems to embrace the "SC" logo a lot more than the University of South Carolina, like others have said. I like the "use it or lose it" moniker.

Speaking of which, all I really care is that someone stops calling them self "USC." Because it can really piss me off reading football scores or news because I always get mixed up. Can't one be "SCU" or "CSC"?

[Erik121]

Here is a bigger version of the logo that they are probably talking about:

[Arts11]

The Mets and Yankees' cap logos are identical only in that they're both an interlocking NY. That's it.

On the other hand, USC has invested a lot of money in its "SC" identity, while South Carolina hasn't. Look no further than your sig for proof of that.

Speaking of the interlocking NY, how is it that the Knicks were able to use a recolored version of the Yankees' NY on their shorts in the past? Did they just not care, or was it licensed somehow to the Knicks?

[Gothamite]

I have no idea, and I've wondered that myself.

[Jamikel]

That's a shame. South Carolina's interlocking SC is leaps and bounds beyond anything Southern Cal has.

[Jimmy!]

If Southern Cal trademarked it first, and if South Carolina didn't use it for a period of time, then I can see why Southern Cal would win. It's a stupid thing to go to court over, but a trademark's a trademark.

[Cola]

If Southern Cal trademarked it first, and if South Carolina didn't use it for a period of time, then I can see why Southern Cal would win. It's a stupid thing to go to court over, but a trademark's a trademark.

I just don't see how you can trademark two letters. Google "SC" and see what you come up with. It is my university they are dealing with so it bothers me, but I do blame our PR department for not keeping the "SC" involved more. I just feel bad for Ray Tanner because he brought the baseball interlocking SC back and has put out some very classy uniforms and built a national powerhouse as well.

What also bothers me is the way Southern Cal has handled this. They could have done what WE did for them back in the 80's, which was allow them to use "USC" without any restrictions on licensing. We gave that up so we could both use it. Now on their end they aren't complying when it is their turn.

[Gothamite]

I just don't see how you can trademark two letters.

You can't.

You can, however, trademark the way in which the two letters are drawn. And there's a fairly substantial similarity between the two baseball marks.

What also bothers me is the way Southern Cal has handled this. They could have done what WE did for them back in the 80's, which was allow them to use "USC" without any restrictions on licensing. We gave that up so we could both use it. Now on their end they aren't complying when it is their turn.

When that agreement was made, both schools had been using "USC" uninterrupted for fifty years. It wasn't exactly like the Gamecocks could have prevented the Trojans from using it but decided not to out of the goodness of their hearts....

[RedEye]

The thing I don't like so much is you will never mistake one for the other. They are in completely different conferences and geographic area. The letter styles are completely different and other than interlocking you would NEVER think one is the other when it comes to merchandising.

I think USC is being a little ridiculous.... throw some weight around for no real good reason... tell me how the Carolina SC damages USC in any way.

[Cola]

When that agreement was made, both schools had been using "USC" without problem for fifty years. It wasn't exactly like the Gamecocks could have prevented the Trojans from using it but decided not to out of the goodness of their hearts....

No, but South Carolina could have prevented them from it on the same grounds as Southern Cal is going after in this situation.

August, 1981:

"2. SOUTH CAROLINA shall not object and hereby consents to the use by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA or its licensees, distributors or other lawful designees of the designation USC on and in connection with educational and related services as well as consumer products of varying description. [Page 40]"

[Gothamite]

Not necessarily.

You left out:

"1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA shall not object and hereby consents to the use by SOUTH CAROLINA or its licensees, distributors or other lawful designees of the designation USC on and in connection with educational and related services as well as consumer products of varying description. ..."

Both schools had equal claim to the designation USC, as both had been using it independently for half a century. That 1981 agreement was an admission thereof from both sides, not a gift from the Gamecocks to the Trojans.

[Gothamite]

The thing I don't like so much is you will never mistake one for the other. They are in completely different conferences and geographic area. The letter styles are completely different and other than interlocking you would NEVER think one is the other when it comes to merchandising.

Don't look at the misleading picture attached to the article - the point of dispute appears to be the baseball "SC", not the one in the picture.

They might be in a different area, but they each merchandise nationally. They compete at the same level of athletics, and they each receive national attention.

[Burmy]

Now I'm waiting for the big legal free-for-all between Ohio State, Oklahoma State, and Oregon State over who gets to use the "OSU" abbreviation!

[hawk36]

To me, the Trojans are definitely wrong on this one. Give me a break. This is a perfect example of the courts and lawyers mucking up society. If the Trojans win, as others have noted, next it will be Ohio State vs Oklahoma State, and then hundreds of other colleges and universities that have the same letters. Then comes the high schools. You just can't do it.

[LuvTheNats]

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....