Search News


Browse Archives

News

Southern Cal Lays Claim to Logo

January 20, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

There’s a familiar pattern emerging in the college sports world lately. Just when a Southeastern Conference college thinks it has a hold on something good, the University of Southern California claims it as its own.

Southern Cal made headlines last week by luring Lane Kiffin to become head football coach, only a year after the 34-year-old settled into his job at the University of Tennessee. Then came the news Tuesday from a federal appeals court, which ruled that Southern Cal -- not the University of South Carolina -- had the rightful trademark claim to an interlocking “SC” logo employed by both institutions.

The ruling will not force South Carolina to immediately discontinue use of the logo, which is predominantly featured on baseball caps. It will, however, deny South Carolina some of the trademark protections that come with federal registration, while at the same time granting Southern Cal an opening to legally challenge South Carolina’s use of the logo.

“In light of this opinion, South Carolina is going to have to take a careful look at its activities,” said Scott Edelman, a Los Angeles lawyer representing Southern California.

The appeals court ruling is the latest decision in a case that stretches back to 2002, when Southern California challenged South Carolina’s application to federally register its “SC” logo as a trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refused to register the logo, saying it was confusingly similar to that of Southern Cal.

In a counterclaim, South Carolina challenged Southern Cal’s use of the logo, arguing that the initials “SC” actually have a longstanding association with the state of South Carolina, of which the university is an agency. The court found, however, that the university failed to make its case that “SC” is uniquely identifiable with the state. Indeed, the university’s own evidence demonstrated that 16 other colleges use the letters “SC” to represent themselves.

The ruling was labeled “nonprecedential,” signaling that it has few obvious applications to other trademark disputes.

Even absent trademark registration, South Carolina has other legal avenues available to protect its baseball logo from unauthorized reproduction, according to Neil Jones, a lawyer representing the university. That said, the registration would be useful because it gives an institution an “automatic ticket” to challenge infringement, Jones said.

“The University of South Carolina certainly believed that this was important enough to try to overcome the TTAB’s decision,” he said, “and frankly it’s because we like to protect our trademarks, and we would like to have a federal registration for our baseball logo.”

No decision has been made about whether the university will take its case to the U.S. Supreme Court, Jones said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Southern Cal Lays Claim to Logo

  • Posted on January 20, 2010 at 7:15am EST
  • This has got to be a joke. I went to Iowa State University (ISU) but I think there is an Illinois State University, too. For all I know, maybe an Idaho State University. How can there be a copyright on a set of letters? I understand something unique, like the Golden Arches, or the kindly face of the Colonel (KFC) but alphabet letters?

  • This is understandable
  • Posted by Larry Hincker , Assoc VP University Relations at Virginia Tech on January 20, 2010 at 8:00am EST
  • This is an understandable ruling. Letters are not "trademarkable." ISU or USC or VT can not be trademarked. In my universitys' case, the state of Vermont or Virginia Transformer might object....:) However, a unique design and combination of letters can be given protection and, I believe, that is what caused California SC to oppose Carolina's SC unique (or not so unique) design. The design of the interlocking combination of SC letters is similar.

  • Posted by Greg on January 20, 2010 at 10:00am EST
  • one of the hallmark cases was in 1976, a Nebraska Tv station went up against mighty NBC, over the letter N. And Nebraska won!

  • RE: Will the real SC please stand up?
  • Posted by PG on January 20, 2010 at 10:15am EST
  • It is so interesting to me that interlocking letters, football, coaches who want to coach forever, takes precedence over the more serious issues facing universities like funding, equal opportunity for admitting students, tenure, etc.

  • Phew!
  • Posted by gus03phd on January 20, 2010 at 12:15pm EST
  • So I get to keep my "Strippers Club" hat without paying those bozos a dollar?

  • Clarification
  • Posted by "Just the Facts, Mam" on January 20, 2010 at 3:15pm EST
  • Per the suggestion that initials can't be protected, that would come as a huge surprise to IBM, NCR, etc. Also MIT, BYU, and others. In fact, a number of schools won a decision recently that included the fact that OU can be protected.

    When it comes to selling collegiate merchandise with those initials everyone should want them to be protected.

  • Posted on January 21, 2010 at 5:15am EST
  • South Carolina has been using this logo for a very long time. You have to be blind to not tell the difference. Also, you have to be completely ignorant of both programs not to know the difference in the logos. I'm just glad to know that on the west coast that usc stands for university of spoiled children.

  • The actual complaint...
  • Posted by GC at USC on January 21, 2010 at 8:30pm EST
  • was related to this hat, the actual on-field cap for USC Baseball which has been trademarked and used by the Trojans for a long time.

    http://store.cstv.com/marketplace/store/Vendor22/fullscale/6332396-c.jpg

  • Thanks, GC - that image explains this much better
  • Posted by Terre on January 22, 2010 at 5:15am EST
  • The hats shown with this article muddy the issue, because obviously those logos are very different. I'm a graphic designer and can articulate several significant points of difference, so I couldn't understand why the TTAB would find them so similar.

    The logo GC points us to is somewhat similar, though not enough to cause confusion. Especially given the geographical separation of the campuses. I think TTAB made a mistake, that only serves to make all things related to trademarks more confusing.

    PG, the issue is important because licensing a logo for use on tshirts, hats, etc. is a big source of funds for universities.

  • OK big boy
  • Posted by a Gamecock , Assistant Director of Inst Res at Eastern Connecticut State Univ on January 22, 2010 at 9:30am EST
  • Southern Cal, you are a mighty, strong, bold institution and your position in this controversy shows your great leadership. I wish my beloved alma mater in Columbia had so much guts.

    SoCal, I am looking forward to your next move which is the only move that makes any sense given what you have done so far. And obviously you will do it because that's what the strong intelligent people in LA do. You will now sue ESPN over the Sports Center logo which is a precise replica of the SoCal logo. If a logo that looks about 10% similar to yours is so hurtful to your merch business, then I can assume that a corporation using a logo that is 99.4% similar to yours will hurt it even worse.

    Good luck to the brilliant Trojan athletics department, leading the way like they always do.