NC State Questioning Use of "Wolfpack" by Loyola (N.O.)

[pcgd]

These need to stop being reported as the "Big Bad School" going after the "little guy"

NC State and Loyola will work out an agreement, just like Loyola and Nevada did for use of that logo. NC State has to protect its marks or risk losing them. Its right there in the story about Virginia Tech not being able to protect "Hokie" because they haven't protected it in the past. And that's a unique name.

All they have to do is prove that they are protecting it in the courts. Sending these letters and working out agreements proves that and that's all they are trying to do here. They aren't picking on anyone just to pick on them.

[sc49erfan15]

These need to stop being reported as the "Big Bad School" going after the "little guy"

NC State and Loyola will work out an agreement, just like Loyola and Nevada did for use of that logo. NC State has to protect its marks or risk losing them. Its right there in the story about Virginia Tech not being able to protect "Hokie" because they haven't protected it in the past. And that's a unique name.

All they have to do is prove that they are protecting it in the courts. Sending these letters and working out agreements proves that and that's all they are trying to do here. They aren't picking on anyone just to pick on them.

I understand their motive behind it (needing to protect it in the courts) but this "failure to protect" stuff just doesn't make sense to me. If it's yours and it's copyrighted...it should still be yours, whether you "protect it" or not.

If I buy a big parcel of land but don't live on it and never go to it, but I own the deed, the land's still mine. Whether or not I built a fence/visited the land, if in my absence, someone decided they wanted to build a house on my land...it's still my land. Right?

[guest23]

These need to stop being reported as the "Big Bad School" going after the "little guy"

NC State and Loyola will work out an agreement, just like Loyola and Nevada did for use of that logo. NC State has to protect its marks or risk losing them. Its right there in the story about Virginia Tech not being able to protect "Hokie" because they haven't protected it in the past. And that's a unique name.

All they have to do is prove that they are protecting it in the courts. Sending these letters and working out agreements proves that and that's all they are trying to do here. They aren't picking on anyone just to pick on them.

I understand their motive behind it (needing to protect it in the courts) but this "failure to protect" stuff just doesn't make sense to me. If it's yours and it's copyrighted...it should still be yours, whether you "protect it" or not.

If I buy a big parcel of land but don't live on it and never go to it, but I own the deed, the land's still mine. Whether or not I built a fence/visited the land, if in my absence, someone decided they wanted to build a house on my land...it's still my land. Right?

wrong...if you are an absentee owner and don't secure your land you open up the possibility of losing ownership to squatters.

[leopard88]

These need to stop being reported as the "Big Bad School" going after the "little guy"

NC State and Loyola will work out an agreement, just like Loyola and Nevada did for use of that logo. NC State has to protect its marks or risk losing them. Its right there in the story about Virginia Tech not being able to protect "Hokie" because they haven't protected it in the past. And that's a unique name.

All they have to do is prove that they are protecting it in the courts. Sending these letters and working out agreements proves that and that's all they are trying to do here. They aren't picking on anyone just to pick on them.

I understand their motive behind it (needing to protect it in the courts) but this "failure to protect" stuff just doesn't make sense to me. If it's yours and it's copyrighted...it should still be yours, whether you "protect it" or not.

If I buy a big parcel of land but don't live on it and never go to it, but I own the deed, the land's still mine. Whether or not I built a fence/visited the land, if in my absence, someone decided they wanted to build a house on my land...it's still my land. Right?

Um, not necessarily. Look up the phrase "adverse possession" (or just read this -- Senez. v. Collins). Just make sure you pop in more than once every 20 years.

[Puck]

Needs to mediate.

[speedy]

These need to stop being reported as the "Big Bad School" going after the "little guy"

NC State and Loyola will work out an agreement, just like Loyola and Nevada did for use of that logo. NC State has to protect its marks or risk losing them. Its right there in the story about Virginia Tech not being able to protect "Hokie" because they haven't protected it in the past. And that's a unique name.

All they have to do is prove that they are protecting it in the courts. Sending these letters and working out agreements proves that and that's all they are trying to do here. They aren't picking on anyone just to pick on them.

I understand their motive behind it (needing to protect it in the courts) but this "failure to protect" stuff just doesn't make sense to me. If it's yours and it's copyrighted...it should still be yours, whether you "protect it" or not.

If I buy a big parcel of land but don't live on it and never go to it, but I own the deed, the land's still mine. Whether or not I built a fence/visited the land, if in my absence, someone decided they wanted to build a house on my land...it's still my land. Right?

Um, not necessarily. Look up the phrase "adverse possession" (or just read this -- Senez. v. Collins). Just make sure you pop in more than once every 20 years.

Yup, just won a court case involving adverse possession, half my driveway was on my neighbors property (thanks 1920's city planning!). He never used it then one day decided to put up a fence on the line, sued for adverse possession, proved he hasn't used it in over 20 years and boom thanks for the driveway.

Use it or lose it, I like what NC State is doing here.

[hjwii]

Being an alum of Loyola (BBA, 92), I'll throw in my two cents...

The article states:

"Yearbooks at Loyola show the name Wolfpack was being used by teams at the school as early as 1932"

Another article states:

"N.C. State claims its use of Wolfpack for sporting events dates back to 1947"

My link

So, we had it first - nyah...

And, yes, there was a period where there were no "varsity" sports at the school, but club teams were still know as the Wolfpack. Throughout the school, there were references to wolves and "wolfpacks" etc (big wolf paws all over the floor in what would have been the university center). Oh...oh... and the presence of wolves on the school crest My link.

Anyway, just drives me crazy that they wait some 80+ years to bring this up. And, really, why can't we have two "Wolfpacks" if one is not using the other's logo/identity? Will Missouri send a C&D to LSU or Auburn? Or is this a case of the big NCAA school coming down on the little NAIA school because they have the deeper pockets?

No doubt I will be slammed, but where I can see protecting a logo, I cannot see protecting a nickname or even a color (yeah, I remember LSU trying to copyright purple at some point, but I forget the gist of that brainstorm)...

[rams80]

These need to stop being reported as the "Big Bad School" going after the "little guy"

NC State and Loyola will work out an agreement, just like Loyola and Nevada did for use of that logo. NC State has to protect its marks or risk losing them. Its right there in the story about Virginia Tech not being able to protect "Hokie" because they haven't protected it in the past. And that's a unique name.

All they have to do is prove that they are protecting it in the courts. Sending these letters and working out agreements proves that and that's all they are trying to do here. They aren't picking on anyone just to pick on them.

If this was a logo I'd agree with you. However, since they're trying to get a lockdown on the English language word that just about everyone would use to describe a group of wolves, I think this is untoward overstretch on their part.