Notre Dame goes after a private Catholic high school.

[Gothamite]

Bust 'em all. Every last one of them.

You want to know why they chose Cathedral? Here's "Cathedral's" logo.

That's why.

[BBTV]

I doubt they "chose" to go after them - it's just the one that they're aware of now and it happens to be a pretty big case of 100% theft. It's impossible to know about everyone who is ripping you off, and even if you did, you couldn't go after them all at once. You prioritize based on risk, and in this case, the risk associated with not defending yourself against a 100% theft is higher than the risk associated with not defending yourself against hybrids or bastardizations. It's pretty easy to understand, actually.

[Buster]

Bust 'em all. Every last one of them.

You want to know why they chose Cathedral? Here's "Cathedral's" logo.

That's why.

York Catholic has that same guy painted HUGE in their gym on the wall. At least, when I played against them 15 years ago, they did.

[Buffalo]

I doubt they "chose" to go after them - it's just the one that they're aware of now and it happens to be a pretty big case of 100% theft. It's impossible to know about everyone who is ripping you off, and even if you did, you couldn't go after them all at once. You prioritize based on risk, and in this case, the risk associated with not defending yourself against a 100% theft is higher than the risk associated with not defending yourself against hybrids or bastardizations. It's pretty easy to understand, actually.

Theft is what goes on at Notre Dame... poor bastards putting themselves into deep debt (unless they play hoops, lax or football) for a useless degree.

Just kidding ND is a good school but they should be HAPPY so many Catholic HS across the country use their logos and identity. Imitation is a form of flattery.

Back in the day when they had a good football team (Very long time ago, I know) everyone wanted to be associated with them!

My point is they need to layoff the whole witch hunt (hard for Catholics to do, sorry pun-ny) and let these other ND loves use that goddamn ugly leprechaun logo. It ain't hurting anybody.

Those Domers are awash in CA$H MONEY---the high schools however, are NOT.

But heck, in the end, if all we get is another reason to HATE ON NOTRE DAME, I'M ALL FOR IT!!!

[DrJack]

It sounds like the only reason they are doing this is so that they can have a legal history of protecting their brand. If someone actually did try to rip off Notre Dame and make a profit then the school could sue and use this case as evidence of their history trying to preserve their "brand". If they don't do this every once in a while, the guy trying to rip off the school could point to the fact that tons of teams use the logo across the country and ND is just "picking on him".

Id you don't protect it, your hold on it is weakened. I get it. Makes total sense.

BUT JESUS CHRIST C'MON!!!!!

One way to protect your brand is to sue and force this tiny private school to stop using your leprechaun. Another way is for the giant Notre Dame University to enter an agreement with the high school that grants them permission to continue using an image that is obviously a point of pride for the school. A letter that says, "Hey, you are using our logo. We'll grant you permission to use it, but only on the basis that you pay us . . . $1 a year for as long as you continue to use it and sign this agreement contract." I'm sure the high school would happily oblige.

With an agreement contract the brand is still protected and the tiny private high school which never had any intention of stealing merchandise money from ND can continue to use its logo. ND can still lay claim to a history of taking legal action against people infringing on their property.

And honestly, they're probably even making money of these high schoolers. How many private Catholic school kids in this country grow up wanting to go to ND? Tons. And that number is probably even higher is they graduated from a school called the Cathedral Fighting Irish. And if I went to Cathedral, I'd probably want to own a number of these shirts, available at the Notre Dame store online:

Sorry for the long post, but this is f-ing ridiculous. Notre Dame does not need to do what they are doing.

[Gothamite]

And if the school had approached them for a license in the first place, maybe that would be worth considering.

But I have a zero-tolerance policy for theft. Personally, I think it should disqualify the schools from ever trying to enter into such an equation.

Actions have consequences. Not only does Notre Dame have the right to stop theft, they have the legal and moral obligation to do it. And good on them for doing so.

And just why should ND share their intellectual property, diluting it in the process? If, as you say, the kids want to go there, they'll buy the tshirts anyway with no possibility that the school will bootleg them and cut ND out of the profits.

[KCScout76]

The article stated that the University of ND does not seekout schools who violate their trademark logo, but when they become aware of it, then the UND takes action. What Catholic school would they not know that they would use their logo - a lot of kids from Catholic schools apply to the University. On your application, it probably says,

Question 12: What is your schools mascot?

Question 12a: If you answered, "Fighting Irish", does the logo look like ours, see image below.

(Notre Dame Irish Guy inserted here)

Question 12b: If NO, please snich out those schools in your league that do use our logo, or you might go to hell.

(then "throw" 10 Hail Marys and say 12 Our Fathers).

[topcityhockey]

well frankly as an Irishman I say that all of the schools should have to quit using the demeaning "Fighting Irish" nickname. It only perpetuates the stereotype of Irish people as prone to pugilistic exploits. Also the leprechaun image is demeaning to leprechauns, I've met quite a few and none of them look like that. So how about we just toss all of the logos in the trash can and come up with something new.

[TalktoChuck]

And if the school had approached them for a license in the first place, maybe that would be worth considering.

But I have a zero-tolerance policy for theft. Personally, I think it should disqualify the schools from ever trying to enter into such an equation.

This is exactly how I feel. If the high school wants a license to use the logo, then they should have asked Notre Dame in the first place. Don't steal the logo and then back your way into a license to use the logo. If I was Notre Dame (or any other pro sports/collegiate team that had their brand stolen) I wouldn't give a license to a school that already stole the logo in the first place. If you want to use the logo, negotiate a license, don't steal it.

[DrJack]

Well, I disagree with all of you guys. There is more than one right way to go about the situation. Gothamite, TalkToChuck, I understand what you are saying, but I think its a completely BS way to address the problem. Sure its well within their rights, but that doesn't mean its the "ethical" thing to do. There are states where its legal to shoot someone for stepping on your property ("its trespassing, duh!!"). That doesn't make it an appropriate response to the problem.

There is NO moral obligation to treat this high school the way ND is. If ND really doesn't want anyone else using that logo, then fine. They can act as they have. But there is no legitimate reason why this should be a problem for ND, and there are much more appropriate ways to react.

Actions have consequences. Not only does Notre Dame have the right to stop theft, they have the legal and moral obligation to do it. And good on them for doing so.

And just why should ND share their intellectual property, diluting it in the process?

This is theft in the legal sense, yes. But you talk as if Notre Dame is witnessing a car-jacking and they are morally obligated to do something about it. This is not the same as a car-jacking.

The reason Notre Dame SHOULD share their intellectual property is because there is a small Catholic school across the country where the students, parents, and community have been rallying around a boxing leprechaun for years. That logo is just as important to the students and alumni at Cathedral as it is to the students and alumni at Notre Dame. They are in no way hurting Notre Dame by using the logo. They are in no way hindering the operations of Notre Dame as a university.

This is a completely victimless crime. Notre Dame has the right to take action, but that doesn't mean they should. And they are definitely not "morally obligated" to, that is just ridiculous. If they are truly concerned about losing their trademark rights, they can easily find an amicable and sensitive solution.

[TalktoChuck]

Well, I disagree with all of you guys. There is more than one right way to go about the situation. Gothamite, TalkToChuck, I understand what you are saying, but I think its a completely BS way to address the problem. Sure its well within their rights, but that doesn't mean its the "ethical" thing to do. There are states where its legal to shoot someone for stepping on your property ("its trespassing, duh!!"). That doesn't make it an appropriate response to the problem.

There is NO moral obligation to treat this high school the way ND is. If ND really doesn't want anyone else using that logo, then fine. They can act as they have. But there is no legitimate reason why this should be a problem for ND, and there are much more appropriate ways to react.

Actions have consequences. Not only does Notre Dame have the right to stop theft, they have the legal and moral obligation to do it. And good on them for doing so.

And just why should ND share their intellectual property, diluting it in the process?

This is theft in the legal sense, yes. But you talk as if Notre Dame is witnessing a car-jacking and they are morally obligated to do something about it. This is not the same as a car-jacking.

The reason Notre Dame SHOULD share their intellectual property is because there is a small Catholic school across the country where the students, parents, and community have been rallying around a boxing leprechaun for years. That logo is just as important to the students and alumni at Cathedral as it is to the students and alumni at Notre Dame. They are in no way hurting Notre Dame by using the logo. They are in no way hindering the operations of Notre Dame as a university.

This is a completely victimless crime. Notre Dame has the right to take action, but that doesn't mean they should. And they are definitely not "morally obligated" to, that is just ridiculous. If they are truly concerned about losing their trademark rights, they can easily find an amicable and sensitive solution.

If they don't take action then they lose their copyright on that logo and won't be able to stop counterfeit organizations from producing merchandise with Notre Dame's brand on it. That's thousands (if not more) of dollars down the drain because they decided to be "the nice guy" and let some catholic school steal their property.

What your suggesting (in your earlier post) by giving them a license to use the logo even after they already stole the logo, is basically they same as if I walked into a Best Buy and stole a CD, but they caught me, so i say "Well can I pay for it now, instead of going to jail?" It just doesn't work like that. As Gothamite said, your actions have consequences.

[loogodude90]

Well, I disagree with all of you guys. There is more than one right way to go about the situation. Gothamite, TalkToChuck, I understand what you are saying, but I think its a completely BS way to address the problem. Sure its well within their rights, but that doesn't mean its the "ethical" thing to do. There are states where its legal to shoot someone for stepping on your property ("its trespassing, duh!!"). That doesn't make it an appropriate response to the problem.

There is NO moral obligation to treat this high school the way ND is. If ND really doesn't want anyone else using that logo, then fine. They can act as they have. But there is no legitimate reason why this should be a problem for ND, and there are much more appropriate ways to react.

Actions have consequences. Not only does Notre Dame have the right to stop theft, they have the legal and moral obligation to do it. And good on them for doing so.

And just why should ND share their intellectual property, diluting it in the process?

This is theft in the legal sense, yes. But you talk as if Notre Dame is witnessing a car-jacking and they are morally obligated to do something about it. This is not the same as a car-jacking.

The reason Notre Dame SHOULD share their intellectual property is because there is a small Catholic school across the country where the students, parents, and community have been rallying around a boxing leprechaun for years. That logo is just as important to the students and alumni at Cathedral as it is to the students and alumni at Notre Dame. They are in no way hurting Notre Dame by using the logo. They are in no way hindering the operations of Notre Dame as a university.

This is a completely victimless crime. Notre Dame has the right to take action, but that doesn't mean they should. And they are definitely not "morally obligated" to, that is just ridiculous. If they are truly concerned about losing their trademark rights, they can easily find an amicable and sensitive solution.

It's theft plain and simple, and the party that was stolen from has the right to legally respond however they want to, including going after those who committed theft (in this case, the private Catholic school). There would be nothing "inappropriate" about Notre Dame doing so.

They are morally obligated to take action, in my opinion. If someone steals from you, then I believe you have the right to legally respond however you want. Remember, Notre Dame is the victim here; not the private Catholic school.

If anything, I think there should be more of an uproar about a Catholic school committing theft... but that's just me.

[BBTV]

Well, I disagree with all of you guys. There is more than one right way to go about the situation. Gothamite, TalkToChuck, I understand what you are saying, but I think its a completely BS way to address the problem. Sure its well within their rights, but that doesn't mean its the "ethical" thing to do. There are states where its legal to shoot someone for stepping on your property ("its trespassing, duh!!"). That doesn't make it an appropriate response to the problem.

There is NO moral obligation to treat this high school the way ND is. If ND really doesn't want anyone else using that logo, then fine. They can act as they have. But there is no legitimate reason why this should be a problem for ND, and there are much more appropriate ways to react.

Actions have consequences. Not only does Notre Dame have the right to stop theft, they have the legal and moral obligation to do it. And good on them for doing so.

And just why should ND share their intellectual property, diluting it in the process?

This is theft in the legal sense, yes. But you talk as if Notre Dame is witnessing a car-jacking and they are morally obligated to do something about it. This is not the same as a car-jacking.

The reason Notre Dame SHOULD share their intellectual property is because there is a small Catholic school across the country where the students, parents, and community have been rallying around a boxing leprechaun for years. That logo is just as important to the students and alumni at Cathedral as it is to the students and alumni at Notre Dame. They are in no way hurting Notre Dame by using the logo. They are in no way hindering the operations of Notre Dame as a university.

This is a completely victimless crime. Notre Dame has the right to take action, but that doesn't mean they should. And they are definitely not "morally obligated" to, that is just ridiculous. If they are truly concerned about losing their trademark rights, they can easily find an amicable and sensitive solution.

You really don't understand a lot of things.

[crashcarson15]

And the "Notre Dame becoming aware" of this makes perfect sense, considering their Sun Bowl visit this past December.

[Gothamite]

I'm stunned that anyone on these boards would consider intellectual propety theft "a victimless crime".

[Mingjai]

As simple as possible:

1) Rights in copyright attach when a creative work has been fixed in a tangible medium. Rights to a trade or service mark are acquired when the mark is used in commerce.

2) Copyrights and trademarks grant the owner the right to exclusively and control the use of his or her copyright or trademark.

3) Unauthorized use of a copyright or trademark gives the owner a private cause of action to enforce his or her rights.

4) Remedies available to the owner include monetary damages and injunctions.

5) If infringement occurs, and the copyright or trademark owner does not act, then the owner might be prevented from future enforcement against the infringers by the statute of limitations or equitable laches.

6) An accused infringer may invoke the defense of fair use of the copyright or trademark if he or she meets the narrow requirements of fair use.

In this case:

A owns the marks.

B is using A's marks without A's permission.

A is aware of the illicit use.

If A does not act to enforce its marks, it will lose some of its enforcement rights.

Therefore A should act to enforce its rights.

You would think that on a forum dedicated to design, the members would be more appreciative of the benefits copyright and trademark law bring to designers, businesses, and society in general. If it's because the story is couched in terms of Notre Dame bullying an innocent high school that causes people to react the way they do, then they should think of the parties as "A" and "B". The names of the parties and their size or economic status should not drive the outcome under copyright or trademark law. If you think otherwise, then maybe your beef is with the law itself.

It bothers me that high schools invoke the oppression-by-the-trademark-owner argument because that is condoning the activity of infringement. The school is perfectly within its rights if it wants to fight the alleged infringement on its merits--i.e., they aren't infringing because they were first to use the mark or because there is no likelihood of confusion or because the design was created independently and without knowledge of the protected design. School should be teaching students to honor and respect copyright and trademark law, not to thumb their noses at it.

One more thing before I get back to work--I don't like to equate infringement with theft. Theft is a criminal violation enforceable by the state and punishable by fine and imprisonment. Infringement in its basic form is not criminal and must be enforced by the private party involved and it is punishable by damages or injunctions. Because of infringement is generally civil and not criminal, infringement is conversion, not theft. In the end, conversion is also morally reprehensible.

[DrJack]

I just don't think this is as black and white as y'all see it to be. I'm very appreciative of the copyright and trademark law and think that in many cases violators should be prosecuted to the fullest. However I don't believe that any legal matter should be boiled down to "A" and "B". Who the offender is and who the victim is and the circumstances behind the offense are all important things that can't be ignored.

I'm not suggesting that Notre Dame shouldn't do anything - they should. Their response should just be appropriate to the situation. Like Mingjai said, this isn't "theft". Nothing was "stolen". Those are words used by people to invoke a stronger emotional response, but they are inaccurate in this case. Comparisons to stealing CDs from Best Buy aren't applicable here. This is copyright infringement, and Cathedral is guilty. The important question is, what harm was done and how can that be remedied?

In my opinion no harm was done. And it should be remedied with a usage agreement. It is fair and sensitive to both parties. Notre Dame retains their ability to enforce their trademarks and the high school retains its ability to put a leprechaun on its football field.

And I'll stand by the victimless crime comment. If Notre Dame is the victim, how are they hurt in this situation? They aren't really, minus a weakening of their copyright rights which can easily be regained.

Lastly, I keep getting responses that say "Notre Dame has the right to legally respond however they want to". I never argued against that. They do have that right. Its how they use that right that shows the character of their institution, and their response is inappropriate in this case.

If I were a judge, I'd agree completely with Notre Dame in this case. If I was a lawyer I'd probably suggest they do just what they are doing (thats how lawyers work). If I were a Notre Dame administrator, I'd do something completely different.

Anyway, thats just my opinion. Take it for what you will.

[ElwoodCuse]

There are states where its legal to shoot someone for stepping on your property ("its trespassing, duh!!"). That doesn't make it an appropriate response to the problem.

haha this is absolutely not true. Not even in Texas.

[DrJack]

There are states where its legal to shoot someone for stepping on your property ("its trespassing, duh!!"). That doesn't make it an appropriate response to the problem.

haha this is absolutely not true. Not even in Texas.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shooting at a trespasser in Texas is legal after nightfall. And also legal if they step inside your home at any time of day. I should probably know this, because I just moved to Texas, but admittedly I'm just going off of what I've heard. I could very well be mistaken. Sorry if so.

Either way, the analogy still fits. Shooting someone for trespassing is not an appropriate response to the problem.

[ElwoodCuse]

Please don't tell me you own a gun. Even in Texas you can only shoot someone if they threaten you or someone else with deadly force or are burglarizing your home or something like that.