The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-16-2015 11:38 AM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:12 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:53 AM)BlazintheATL Wrote:  Really like your Birmingham shirt dirt! Any way to purchase one like that?

Unless he sells it through Snoozy's (who has a UAB license), I would not do it publicly. That will definitely trigger legal threats.

I wasn't aware that UAB owned the "Birmingham" trademark.

They own the design of the shirt.

And that design being specifically?

Try to make a t-shirt that says Alabama on it that through its design clearly refers back to the University of Alabama and see how quickly you get sued. Does UA own the trademark to the word Alabama? In the context of an athletics shirt and trade dress of red and white, yeah.

In the same way, UAB could probably argue that shirts that look exactly like the basketball uniforms are also part of their trade dress. Didn't say it's right, but if you believe they'd sue the football foundation over raising money, then you better believe they'd sue free uab types selling "Birmingham" jerseys.

I'm sure they could. Not sure how they would win the case though without some type of trademark of gold shirts with green Birmingham lettering or any color combination thereof.

The reason they are targeting the football foundation has nothing to do with the foundation raising money. They have more important agendas.

I would not treat the houndstooth case as a similar case here either because ultimately Cubby's money won out whereas legally Alabama had no right to the houndstooth items.

(03-16-2015 12:02 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:38 AM)demiveeman Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:12 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 10:53 AM)BlazintheATL Wrote:  Really like your Birmingham shirt dirt! Any way to purchase one like that?

Unless he sells it through Snoozy's (who has a UAB license), I would not do it publicly. That will definitely trigger legal threats.

I wasn't aware that UAB owned the "Birmingham" trademark.

They own the design of the shirt.

Doubtful.

Quote:Posted by the_blazerman - Today 12:11 PM
I'm sure they could. Not sure how they would win the case though without some type of trademark of gold shirts with green Birmingham lettering or any color combination thereof.

They would definitely win.

Any item that "causes" the consumer to be confused with UAB would be actionable by the university. Even though the school doesn't own a trademark to the word Birmingham, if a t-shirt were produced with the word Birmingham in an color scheme involving green and/or gold would be subject to a certain cease and desist and possible suit.

In 2004, LSU, Ohio State, Oklahoma and USC sued a t-shirt manufacturer, Smack Apparel over shirts manufactured in the schools colors that used no official logos or words. In 2008, the 5th circuit court of appeals ruled that though no official trademarks were used, the simple insinuation of the school, its location or its athletic teams and/ or their achievements were misleading to consumers.

While the ruling specifically relates to only those 4 schools and those specific t-shirts, the Federal precedent has been set. Some schools now will challenge anything close to confusion. UAB is generally lenient on what they will let get by, but not always...such as in the case of high school's selling versions of their helmets containing unauthorized use of our dragon logos in Ohio and California. UAB generally will grant secondary school use of our athletic logos as long as the school asks permission and agrees not to sell merchandise containing the logo without licensing the logo. One HS continued use by agreeing to the conditions, the other three changed logos.

Quote:The three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit appeals court took very much the same stance as the lower court. In their ruling, the judges laid out the two major criteria the universities had to meet to prove trademark infringement: to "establish ownership in a legally protectible mark," and to "show infringement by demonstrating a likelihood of confusion" between Smack's apparel and the universities' own products.

On the first point, the court concludes that the universities "have been using their color schemes along with other indicia to identify and distinguish themselves from others," and that "[g]iven the longstanding use of the color scheme marks and their prominent display on merchandise, in addition to the well-known nature of the colors as shorthand for the schools themselves and Smack’s intentional use of the colors and other references, there is no genuine issue of fact that when viewed in the context of t-shirts or other apparel, the marks at issue here have acquired the secondary meaning of identifying the universities in the minds of consumers as the source or sponsor of the products rather than identifying the products themselves."

That finding is consistent, the court wrote, "with the importance generally placed on sports team logos and colors by the public," and the "desire by consumers to associate with a particular university supports the conclusion that team colors and logos are, in the minds of the fans and other consumers," indicators that the universities are the "source indicators of team-related apparel."

Having determined that the universities' colors (in combination with "other indicia" such as the scores of their teams' games, their geographical locations, and the like) qualified for legal protection under trademark law, the Fifth Circuit court turned to the question of whether Smack's shirts created confusion in the minds of consumers.

This was not a close call in the judges' judgment, citing a number of "digits of confusion" -- related to similarities between the products themselves, how they are advertised and where they are sold, and the like -- that combine to create a clear impression in consumers' minds. "[W]e conclude that there is no genuine issue of fact that Smack’s use of the universities’ color schemes and other identifying indicia creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, affiliation, or sponsorship of the t-shirts. As noted above, the digits of confusion -- particularly the overwhelming similarity of the marks and the defendant’s intent to profit from the universities’ reputation -- compel this conclusion," the court's opinion states.

"This is so, we have noted, because Smack’s use of the universities’ colors and indicia is designed to create the illusion of affiliation with the universities and essentially obtain a 'free ride' by profiting from confusion among the fans of the universities’ football teams who desire to show support for and affiliation with those teams. This creation of a link in the consumer’s mind between the t-shirts and the universities and the intent to directly profit therefrom results in 'an unmistakable aura of deception' and likelihood of confusion."

Higher Ed Article:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008.../trademark

Brooklyn Law Review Article:
http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/wp-...6-4-v1.pdf

LSU Article:
http://www.lsureveille.com/news/lsu-wins...2dac0.html

Athletics Business Article:
http://www.athleticbusiness.com/contract...olors.html