It’s patently absurd that Boise was granted a trademark for non-green turf and even more absurd that they have a trademark on “Smurf Turf”. Shouldn’t the owners of the Smurfs IP be taking them to court over infringement?

(09-22-2023 10:35 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It’s patently absurd that Boise was granted a trademark for non-green turf and even more absurd that they have a trademark on “Smurf Turf”. Shouldn’t the owners of the Smurfs IP be taking them to court over infringement?

Well, it probably isn't trademark infringement because consumers are probably not confused at to the source of the goods/services. No thinks the turf was provided by the same people that brought you the Smurfs cartoon. However, I definitely see a cause of action for false designation of origin and false endorsement, if Boise didn't not clear the name with the "Smurfs."

(09-22-2023 10:35 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It’s patently absurd that Boise was granted a trademark for non-green turf and even more absurd that they have a trademark on “Smurf Turf”. Shouldn’t the owners of the Smurfs IP be taking them to court over infringement?

There might be a distinction based on whether it was Boise that started using the term or whether it was a term that started to be used by fans. In the latter case, nobody could reasonably argue that the fans were attempting to confuse people about an association between Boise State and the Smurfs animated works. To infringe on a trademark, you have to show that there is some kind of market confusion or impairment of brand equity -- it's not like a patent where the patented product or process is the property of the patent holder for the life of the patent no matter whether the patent holder presently participates in that market.

A proposal -

Turf / grass has to be green

Seems like there's a safety issue for players (especially college players) - I question if it's harder to play on non green turf or if there are limits

(09-22-2023 10:35 AM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  It’s patently absurd that Boise was granted a trademark for non-green turf and even more absurd that they have a trademark on “Smurf Turf”. Shouldn’t the owners of the Smurfs IP be taking them to court over infringement?

I don't think the trademark on the blue turf is absurd (though I do think Boise's claim that it extends to all non-green turfs is a stretch).

When you think of Michigan, you think of the Block M.

When you think of Alabama, you think of the script A.

When you think of Boise, you think of the blue turf.

A trademark is used to help protect the elements integral to your brand, and I think the blue turf is pretty integral to Boise.

Is it April 1st? This has to be the dumbest thing I've ever seen... So if I am the first to trademark blue shirts, none of y'all can wear blue shirts then? Without getting permission from ol' Bull here?

Good lord. A full black field? Talk about hot.

Some of these fields are hard to watch a game on TV. Esp EWU, and Eastern Mich. Hurts the eyes.

I remember back in the early 90s when we played a playoff game in Boise, it was their old blue turf that was a lighter color. They had the snow pushed to the sides of the field. Anyway, the story went that birds used to dive bomb the field thinking it was water and breaking their necks.

Maybe a BSU fan can comment on that one!

This is about as intelligent as Ohio State suing Ohio U for using the word "Ohio".

(09-21-2023 11:27 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think the basics of it are:

Boise has a trademark on blue turf, that they claim extends to any color turf.

The claim that it applies to any color is dubious, and would be tough to enforce (though the trademark on blue is probably enforceable, since they have the trademark)

When a school wants to get a non-green (and non-blue) turf, the schools usually ask Boise.

Boise likely knows their trademark on non-blue colors would be tough to enforce, so Boise grants the school permission and does not ask for any money or anything.

Thus, most schools are fine asking Boise, they basically always say yes, and it removes any potential threat of a legal battle. Even if you were likely to win the legal battle, it's still going to take time/energy/money.

As Morrisville was open about their desire to spur interest in the program with their new field, it's possible that this sort of discussion was exactly what they were looking for. Ie, Boise won't sue them b/c Morrisville has no money, but people will talk about it as if they might, so they'll be talking about Morrisville. GREAT marketing imo.

(09-22-2023 08:23 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  My guess is being so litigious is partly way Boise never got invited to move up when comparable performing schools like Utah, BYU and TCU did.

Naw, none of them wanted Blue Turf. Boise got left behind b/c they're in the middle of nowhere instead of in sunny Florida or Texas.

(09-23-2023 06:32 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-22-2023 08:23 AM)Sactowndog Wrote:  My guess is being so litigious is partly way Boise never got invited to move up when comparable performing schools like Utah, BYU and TCU did.

Naw, none of them wanted Blue Turf. Boise got left behind b/c they're in the middle of nowhere instead of in sunny Florida or Texas.

Sure I didn’t say all of it. But when you are known for threatening your conference mates with lawsuits others are less likely to overlook other matters.