Started By
Message
re: Collegiate Trademark Question - SEC Related
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:19 am to RollTide MJ
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:19 am to RollTide MJ
It's no accident they produced the cookies for the LAW School and then got a letter from the licensing company....some lawyer/prof/student associated with the event ratted them out. How else would a remote company even know about a local bakery making a few dozen freakin' "A" cookies?
Change the "A", document the change, and then prepare to make the licensing company into the villian if they continue to challenge the bakery. It would make for good media coverage.....jobs, Mom and Pop, "I built this", etc.
The unauthorized use of copyrighted items is a legit issue, but the bakery can play it to their advantage by changing the focus of the discussion.
Change the "A", document the change, and then prepare to make the licensing company into the villian if they continue to challenge the bakery. It would make for good media coverage.....jobs, Mom and Pop, "I built this", etc.
The unauthorized use of copyrighted items is a legit issue, but the bakery can play it to their advantage by changing the focus of the discussion.
1
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:21 am to RollTide MJ
Just use a block A. The customers won't care.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:23 am to crimsonsaint
quote:
who knows what 13-0 means
it was yalls record after winning the SEC chmapionship in 09', when the cookies were made.
quote:
too flat to be a football
Not sure if serious
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:25 am to arrakis
quote:
It's no accident they produced the cookies for the LAW School and then got a letter from the licensing company....some lawyer/prof/student associated with the event ratted them out. How else would a remote company even know about a local bakery making a few dozen freakin' "A" cookies?
Because she has been selling them for years now, if you read the article.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:27 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Because she has been selling them for years now, if you read the article.
...that's my point. No problem with the cookies until they filled an order for the Law School.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:29 am to arrakis
quote:
No problem with the cookies until they filled an order for the Law School.
3 years ago
I'd say that didnt have anything to do with it
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:30 am to NYCAuburn
Since I've dealt with this from the CLC as well, I can tell you that the biggest thing they do to effectively shut out small mom and pops from having novelty niche products like this lady's cookies is the cost of the lowest tier licensing and associated product liability insurance and up front royalty payments actually totals more than the companies are allowed in gross revenue from the products themselves.
In a free country the free market will determine demand, price points, and product mix. There really needs to a be an entry level licensing tier so creative people can at least legally test out ideas and products that people have proven to create a small niche demand for.
In a free country the free market will determine demand, price points, and product mix. There really needs to a be an entry level licensing tier so creative people can at least legally test out ideas and products that people have proven to create a small niche demand for.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:32 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
Not sure if serious
I quit school cause of recess.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:33 am to CtotheVrzrbck
quote:
In a free country the free market will determine demand, price points, and product mix. There really needs to a be an entry level licensing tier so creative people can at least legally test out ideas and products that people have proven to create a small niche demand for.
I agree, My wife designs collegiate themed merchandise. She has to be very strict on what she can and cannot have. She would love to do more, but the fees are quite high for the minimal gains she would make(not a large portion of her business)
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:36 am to CtotheVrzrbck
i bet this is the work of Kelloggs corporate lawyers... they are trying to clear the market for UA to strike a deal to be the next Pop-Tart schools. they've already got the Ala-JAM-a flavor perfected and a preorders for 100k cases w/ Wal-Mart.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:39 am to crimsonsaint
quote:
I'd advise em to frick off. There's no way an A made out of icing is the same exact A that they have trademarked, if you can even trademark a letter in the alphabet.
This comment represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how trademark law works. Here's a very brief primer so you can intelligently discuss it.
1) Trademarks or service marks (herinafter "trademarks") are designed to tell the public the origin of a product or service;
2) the test isn't whether something is exact. the test is a multifactor one that looks for likelihood of confusion;
3) marks are taken as a whole so that slogans that have similar structures but different words can still be confusing;
4) a mark is only as good as your willingness to enforce it. With such a strong and valuable mark, the University must be vigilant in protecting it or risk losing their mark to the public domain;
5) so-called "famous marks" (such as those marks held by Bama) are entitled to even greater protection and make it much more difficult for a junior use to prevail in litigation.
For a beginning study, see Polaroid Corp. v. Polaroid Elects. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961). For further study, set aside a lifetime and thumb through McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition
This post was edited on 8/23/12 at 9:49 am
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:45 am to RollTide MJ
quote:
a capital “A” for Alabama
I think she should fight them. The "A" is obviously not for Alabama, as is easily determinable from the picture. The "A" is for some team that went 13-0.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 8:46 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
I think she should fight them. The "A" is obviously not for Alabama, as is easily determinable from the picture. The "A" is for some team that went 13-0.
She will likely lose because:
quote:
the test isn't whether something is exact. the test is a multifactor one that looks for likelihood of confusion;
Posted on 8/23/12 at 9:00 am to therick711
quote:
1) Trademarks or service marks (herinafter "trademarks") are designed to tell the public the origin of a product or service;
I don't think there is any question as to the origin of the cookie.
This post was edited on 8/23/12 at 9:01 am
Posted on 8/23/12 at 9:06 am to geauxturbo
quote:
I don't think there is any question as to the origin of the cookie.
Origin is greater than who made it. That is why the iphone is associated with apple even though it is made by a factory in China. Origin in trademark law is a "badge of origin." Here, the badge is screaming, this is associated with Alabama. I'm not saying you have to like the law, but it is what it is. Better luck next Lanham Act.
Posted on 8/23/12 at 9:28 am to Nuts4LSU
quote:
The "A" is obviously not for Alabama, as is easily determinable from the picture. The "A" is for some team that went 13-0
The picture is from 2009
Posted on 8/23/12 at 9:30 am to NYCAuburn
quote:
I tried to have an Auburn themed grooms cake at my wedding, and they wouldnt do anything with any logo's.
I had an Au logo on my grooms cake.
Take that Auburn!!
Posted on 8/24/12 at 10:25 pm to parkjas2001
Does this mean Updyke has to change his childrens name's as they are directly associated with the U of A too? Bamer should inform their Licensing Nazies to cool it on this one.
Posted on 8/24/12 at 11:23 pm to RollTide MJ
The cookies are going too far and UA was quick to apologize.
Daniel Moore is a fricking leech though. They were right to go after him, even though I believe they lost.
Daniel Moore is a fricking leech though. They were right to go after him, even though I believe they lost.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News