Patent office tells Southern Miss its logo too similar to Iowa?s

[GeoTheo]

Southern Miss -

Iowa -

Both logos are yellow, and feature the head of a bird, but besides that I don't think that these two logos are really all that similar. Iowa has to understand that there is going to be some similarities, since both schools have the same color scheme and a bird mascot, but despite these similaririties, the two logos are actually pretty different. Iowa's logo is a retro design, while Southern Miss' logo features a more modern design. There are also body differences, such as open beak on Iowa's logo, and a closed beak on Southern Miss' logo. Iowa also only used a circle for the eye, while Southern Miss used a different color.

Sad. Seems they should let actual designers rule on this since the judges obviously don't have an eye for design. Very different. No confusion between the two.

That's exactly why actual designers shouldn't rule on it. We can all easily discern the differences in the logos, and really between any two logos. That's not the point though. The point is that average Joe who doesn't have the same eye for detail can't tell, and could be intentionally or unintentionally fooled. Not saying one way or the other if these are too close or not, just that it's better interpreted by average people, maybe with the counsel of designers.

Also, that 20% thing sounds like a bunch of garbage. Let's see that in writing from some legitimate source.

For those who think there is a 20% rule, you better have a large sum of money, because you're going to be sued a lot! According to the Graphic Artist Guild book, if the main IDEA of the image is taken it's a copyright infringement and that means if you give to Joe Schmo on the street and you ask them if these look similar and they do, then they are similar. That's how the court looks at it, not if they are different but if there are any similarities to each other. That's the issue with this logo from Southern Miss, is it has similarities that to the average person (not us) can and will be confused with Iowa's logo. While I a sports fan can tell the difference (the Iowa logo is much better designed), the average person out there won't be able to tell the difference. All you have to do is print out both logos walk outside and ask people one simple question, "Could these logos come from the same university?" A lot of people will answer, "Yes." That is why it's an infringement case. That's the same reason why South Carolina and USC had their issues. We as fans of sport, need to realize that because we know the difference between two similar logos from two different teams, 75% of the rest of the world doesn't and a logo is a unique identity to that school/team.

Thanks for providing some actual perspective.

[winghaz]

One is a caricature, one is a silhouette. If a judge can't tell the difference, he or she shouldn't be a judge.

[GeoTheo]

This is partly my fault, the title of this thread is misleading, it was simplly the headline from the DM Reg. This was not a design case about wether or not 2 logos look alike. This was an intellectual property case that involves 2 logos. Its obvious that the two logos do not look alike, but there are many similarities between the 2. Someone who is not fimilar with U.S. college sports or sports logos could easily confuse the 2. Iowa has several other logos that make up its "brand", and So. Miss' logo infringes on that trademarked brand. There are countless ways to render a birds head, and So. Miss' is rendered so similarly that it could cause confusion, and possiby "damage" the U of IA's marketing of their "brand". Again, this is not a case about if 2 logos look alike.

[rams80]

This is partly my fault, the title of this thread is misleading, it was simplly the headline from the DM Reg. This was not a design case about wether or not 2 logos look alike. This was an intellectual property case that involves 2 logos. Its obvious that the two logos do not look alike, but there are many similarities between the 2. Someone who is not fimilar with U.S. college sports or sports logos could easily confuse the 2. Iowa has several other logos that make up its "brand", and So. Miss' logo infringes on that trademarked brand. There are countless ways to render a birds head, and So. Miss' is rendered so similarly that it could cause confusion, and possiby "damage" the U of IA's marketing of their "brand". Again, this is not a case about if 2 logos look alike.

Counterpoint for sanity purposes: Why would Iowa be trying to sell merchandise for its athletic teams in Southern Mississippi and vice versa?

[oddball]

One is a caricature, one is a silhouette. If a judge can't tell the difference, he or she shouldn't be a judge.

You're missing the point here. The point is that the average person who does not know anything about sports, when seeing the Southern Miss eagle head logo could pick up a piece of merchandise and purchase it under the premise that it's an Iowa logo. That's the issue. You need to read what Mingjai posted and I'm talking about what the court said. I like the statement in the court decision that said something close to, "Southern Miss had the opportunity to stay away from an established logo and instead went towards it in their design."

[GeoTheo]

This is partly my fault, the title of this thread is misleading, it was simplly the headline from the DM Reg. This was not a design case about wether or not 2 logos look alike. This was an intellectual property case that involves 2 logos. Its obvious that the two logos do not look alike, but there are many similarities between the 2. Someone who is not fimilar with U.S. college sports or sports logos could easily confuse the 2. Iowa has several other logos that make up its "brand", and So. Miss' logo infringes on that trademarked brand. There are countless ways to render a birds head, and So. Miss' is rendered so similarly that it could cause confusion, and possiby "damage" the U of IA's marketing of their "brand". Again, this is not a case about if 2 logos look alike.

Counterpoint for sanity purposes: Why would Iowa be trying to sell merchandise for its athletic teams in Southern Mississippi and vice versa?

Iowa is a national brand. I don't know if the sell merch in So. Miss, but I do know that they have a large fan base outside of the state. As for So. Miss I don't think I heard of them before this legal battle started in, '04/'05?

[Gothamite]

Counterpoint for sanity purposes: Why would Iowa be trying to sell merchandise for its athletic teams in Southern Mississippi and vice versa?

nothing at all "insane" about this ruling - the law is very clear, and the judges seem to have applied it correctly in this case.

Besides, in the age of the Internet, every school sells merchandise everywhere.

[rams80]

Counterpoint for sanity purposes: Why would Iowa be trying to sell merchandise for its athletic teams in Southern Mississippi and vice versa?

nothing at all "insane" about this ruling - the law is very clear, and the judges seem to have applied it correctly in this case.

Besides, in the age of the Internet, every school sells merchandise everywhere.

Yes, but its usually through their own outlets. Unless you were going for bootleg crap on eBay, I think you'd notice if you saw something that was tagged as Southern Miss if you were looking for Iowa stuff.

[Epiphanic]

The brief linked by Mingjai also pointed out that while most athletic merchandise would be sold at school specific outlets (i.e. Iowa and USM stuff not sold together), some retailers (both brick and mortar and internet based) would sell both. The fact that in some instances that Iowa and USM merchandise could be sold at the same outlet is the basis for this suit.

[Mingjai]

The other interesting issue by this matter is whether Iowa would win a suit against USM should the Golden Eagles continue to use the marks even after being denied registration by the USPTO. Right now, Iowa is opposing USM's registration of the trademark with the PTO, which is different than suing for infringement. Theoretically, USM could continue to use the marks with no registered trademark and then force Iowa to sue in federal court. That would allow USM to present its case in front of a jury (where anything could happen), plus is would allow for the possibility that USM has acquired some regional rights to its mark given its nearly 9-year history of using the marks. Common law trademark rights can be acquired through usage and no ruling by the USPTO or TTAB can force USM to stop using the marks--Iowa would have to litigate to get an injunction or damages.

[EJ_Barlik]

Stupid lawsuit. Throw it out. Request denied.

[rams80]

The brief linked by Mingjai also pointed out that while most athletic merchandise would be sold at school specific outlets (i.e. Iowa and USM stuff not sold together), some retailers (both brick and mortar and internet based) would sell both. The fact that in some instances that Iowa and USM merchandise could be sold at the same outlet is the basis for this suit.

I remain quite skeptical that you could find Iowa and Southern Miss swag at the same physical brick and mortar store. And internet browsing (or special orders) should filter out one or the other.

[Mingjai]

As for So. Miss I don't think I heard of them before this legal battle started in, '04/'05?

Didn't follow Brett Favre much, eh? I suppose if Brett Favre was before your time, then you've probably never heard of Ray Guy, the most prolific punter in NFL history who also holds Southern Miss's season interceptions record (8), had a 93-yard punt against Ole Miss, kicked a 61-yard field goal in a snowstorm against Utah State, could throw a football 70-yards, and threw one of Southern Miss's 4 no-hitters.

[GeoTheo]

As for So. Miss I don't think I heard of them before this legal battle started in, '04/'05?

Didn't follow Brett Favre much, eh? I suppose if Brett Favre was before your time, then you've probably never heard of Ray Guy, the most prolific punter in NFL history who also holds Southern Miss's season interceptions record (8), had a 93-yard punt against Ole Miss, kicked a 61-yard field goal in a snowstorm against Utah State, could throw a football 70-yards, and threw one of Southern Miss's 4 no-hitters.

Nope, never "followed" Farve, not before my time, just never cared. I wasn't 100% serious with that comment, I had heard of So. Miss, but not enough to care.

[Eye]

As for So. Miss I don't think I heard of them before this legal battle started in, '04/'05?

Didn't follow Brett Favre much, eh? I suppose if Brett Favre was before your time, then you've probably never heard of Ray Guy, the most prolific punter in NFL history who also holds Southern Miss's season interceptions record (8), had a 93-yard punt against Ole Miss, kicked a 61-yard field goal in a snowstorm against Utah State, could throw a football 70-yards, and threw one of Southern Miss's 4 no-hitters.

That wasn't Ray Guy; it was Nick.

[oddball]

So a kid in Mississippi decides to go to Iowa and his grandmother who lives in Memphis goes out and purchases him a sweatshirt for Christmas that is black and yellow and has a yellow bird head on it. Then on Christmas, when he opens it up he has this perplexed look on his face and says, "Grandma, I'm not going to Southern Miss, I'm going to Iowa." Her response, "Sorry, I just saw the yellow bird on the black sweatshirt, so I bought it." Don't think this can and hasn't happened. Oh you'd be so wrong. You don't know the lack of caring that grandma, moms, sisters have in sports. Just to get something simple as a sweatshirt or a hat of a particular team, when it comes to family members and female ones, you might and you might not get what you are asking for. This is what people seem to forget, and you need to open your eyes to the reality of the rest of the world that they don't know sports logos like we do. Please for once grasp that concept, especially when discussing this.

Of course I'm curious as Mingjai is on what the next step is on this since Southern Miss can't trademark it. Can Iowa produce a Cease & Desist on this ruling? I'm thinking that if they've proven that the logo is similar and could cause brand harm and financial damages, then by all rights they should have the right to stop Southern Miss from using the logo.

[wyopokes2]

As you can tell from my sig, I absolutely love USM's logo. It would break my heart to see it go. I wonder if they would go with the rarely used secondary instead.

[andrewharrington]

?The overall similarity in appearance of the marks on the goods, particularly in light of the use of identical color schemes, creates virtually identical commercial impressions.?

That means the judge thinks the marks are too similar even without the color similarities. I think they are about as different as you can get considering that they're both bird heads. While I am on a sports logo MB, I don't have the designer's eye. While I could see the USM logo as a theoretical logo for a team called the Iowa Hawkeyes with a yellow and black scheme, it doesn't look anything like the actual logo they use now. I wonder where the line is? These rulings should be issued in a Q&A session. What if USM changed color schemes? What if they only use a full-bodied bird? What if they use Vegas gold?

Anyone else interested in seeing the other bird head logos that the USM lawyers used that the judge said don't look anything like the Iowa logo?

Actually, it means that this particular judge cites the color scheme as the main reason these two marks could be confused.

[udubs03]

As you can tell from my sig, I absolutely love USM's logo. It would break my heart to see it go. I wonder if they would go with the rarely used secondary instead.

They should just use this. It's a much better mark anyway.

Depending on how this case proceeds, it will be interesting to see if other schools follow suit.

[Burkell007]

As you can tell from my sig, I absolutely love USM's logo. It would break my heart to see it go. I wonder if they would go with the rarely used secondary instead.

nope that looks more than 20 % like north texas!