Notre Dame goes after a private Catholic high school.

[TalktoChuck]

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.

In Colorado there is a thing called the "Make My Day Law." Where if someone breaks into your house, you are legally allowed to shoot them. Some 16 year old kid broke into some guy's house was killed last year and the guy who shot him (owner of the house) wasn't even charged because of this law.

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20060123/COLUMS/101230030

[Saintsfan]

So even if it's not an appropriate level of action what is Notre Dame to do? Any other course of action results in the weakening of the brand and identity of their college! They aren't trying to take down a High School here, and it's not the HS they are really going after. But if they don't a stand up to high schools doing this, they weaken their ability to stand up to counterfeiters doing it. I know it's easy to take the side of the little man against the big 'bully' but that doesn't seem right in this case. Why doesn't the HS just quietly change it's logo and move on? That seems the most sensible conclusion surely?

[BBTV]

Well just like when we discuss whether the Ravens are the Browns, or whether the Sharks are the Seals, what is "legal" or "technical" isn't always what is "reality".

"Technically", the Ravens aren't the Browns. This cannot be argued. In reality, they are. This also cannot be argued. Technically, the Sharks aren't the Seals. It seems based on what was posted in the other thread that this cannot be argued. In reality, it sure seems like they are (though this is still arguable IMO). Technically, infringement isn't stealing. In reality, it absolutely is. If it's a victimless crime, then why do they even have copyrights and TMs and all of that stuff? If there's no victims, then you don't need rules.

The fact that someone, anyone had the nerve to take something that I created or paid someone to create and simply use it without asking would piss me off to no end and I'd do whatever I could to make an example out of whoever did it so that anyone else would think twice about doing it in the future. Your last post was better composed than the previous one, and I understand now what your point is, I just disagree with it. Legal issues aside, it's never a good thing for a logo to have multiple associations. I want my logo to represent my company and my company only. I don't want any rube to see my logo and think I took it from their local high school, or see my logo and associate it with some other school.

Your point is essentially "just because they can doesn't mean they should." I'll give you that their PR department needs to be sensitive to the public perception of going after some high school, and that's why in many cases they give the school several years to phase everything out. I don't understand how a school, that is allegedly lead by educators, doesn't realize that you can't simply take someone else's property and use it as your own. It sets a bad example for the students, and is simply lazy - especially when there are plenty of talented designers (and even design firms) that will design logos for schools for nothing or next-to-nothing, or license some of their previously unsold work or "clip art" that they own the rights to.

[The_Admiral]

There's no excuse for stealing other people's intellectual property, especially when

1) you are a school and should be teaching that such intellectual dishonesty is wrong

2) you ostensibly employ art teachers who teach art students, who together can and should brand their school themselves

3) it's that stupid-ass Notre Dame leprechaun

[DrJack]

So even if it's not an appropriate level of action what is Notre Dame to do? Any other course of action results in the weakening of the brand and identity of their college! They aren't trying to take down a High School here, and it's not the HS they are really going after. But if they don't a stand up to high schools doing this, they weaken their ability to stand up to counterfeiters doing it. I know it's easy to take the side of the little man against the big 'bully' but that doesn't seem right in this case. Why doesn't the HS just quietly change it's logo and move on? That seems the most sensible conclusion surely?

Its easy, Notre Dame sends a letter that essentially says, "Hey, we noticed you guys are using our logo. Are you aware that it is a trademarked image? We're going to have to ask you to stop using it without our permission. If you refuse, we'll be forced to take legal action. Now, with that said, if you would like our permission to continue use of the image, please call Joe Schmoe at 555-555-5555 and I'm sure we can work something out."

Then ND gets a written contract with the school and their brand and identity are protected. Again, they can enforce their rights however they choose, this is just how I would do it and I think it makes the most sense. It would be fine if the HS just voluntarily changed the logo and moved on, but I understand their attachment to a symbol that they have likely rallied around for generations. Losing a beloved symbol is hard. Just ask all those Illini fans and Indians fans who won't let go of their racist logos because its their "history". Its understandable that they wouldn't want to just give it up.

Legal issues aside, it's never a good thing for a logo to have multiple associations. I want my logo to represent my company and my company only. I don't want any rube to see my logo and think I took it from their local high school, or see my logo and associate it with some other school.

I agree, and I would want my high school to have an original logo not a copy of some university. If I'm Notre Dame, however, I don't think they need to worry about their brand being weakened by a small high school across the country. Its just a drop in the bucket. Does it set a bad example for the students? Not if they reach an agreement with ND.

If it's a victimless crime, then why do they even have copyrights and TMs and all of that stuff? If there's no victims, then you don't need rules.

There is a victim in a lot of infringement cases. People get hurt and lose tons of money in these cases all the times. If I was a rogue t-shirt maker selling shirts with the leprechaun logo without permission, Notre Dame would be losing a ton of money. They would be a victim. In this particular case, Notre Dame isn't suffering in any way. They are not a victim here. That is the difference. Its a case by case deal.

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.

Of course I don't, and I never would. The lax gun laws in this country disgust me (another topic for another time). However, I did clarify the rules with a gun owner at work today and he said you are allowed to shoot someone if they enter your home or attempt to enter your home. You are allowed to shoot if they attempt to enter your vehicle or any other part of your property (garage, shed, treehouse). You must shoot them if the front though, shooting someone in the back is illegal because it signals that the person was retreating or you ambushed them. Anyone engaging in theft, vandalism, or "mischief" on your property is fair game to get shot in Texas, the mailman on the other hand is not.