Rutgers took legal action against Louisiana HS for trademark infringement

[rubaseball78]

Rutgers is being a total ahole, and how can you trademark a block letter?

U Wisc sued Wofford yrs back because Wofford was using a W that looked like Wisc's, but that W is very individualistic.

but a block R isn't, and seems generic to me.

too bad some Ruston law firm didn't have the were with all to help the school tell Rutgers to go blank themself.

it's like saying you have the rights to the sign for we're number 1.

could get interesting with Illinois and Indiana.

Your clueless regarding trademark law. RU is just protecting what is legally theirs. If they don't, they run the risk of losing it. You would probably be first in line also to rip the university if they lost the trademark by not taking action to protect it.

 

[KevH]

When my son was looking at colleges two years ago I knew the Weeks Building wouldn't be ready but I thought for sure they would mention it during the Open House or Accepted Student Day (he got in in but chose another school). Nothing.

* I'd like to know the reason too?

That's a shame, E5. RU should always put its best foot forward. Your experience at the Open House was bad enough, but to still have issues with showcasing what is surely a gem of a building well after construction is completely inexcusable. The word I get is that, although the official tour did not include the Weeks Building, some of the prospective students and their parents found themselves in the building (by accident?) and were BLOWN AWAY by what they saw.

I want to speak to someone to clarify my understanding of how this tour/no tour decision was explained to them, but I also want to shield them from any flak they might catch for telling these things to me. I'd be happy to discuss with you outside this forum (I thought we could DM on this site... guess not).

 

[e5fdny]

That's a shame, E5. RU should always put its best foot forward. Your experience at the Open House was bad enough, but to still have issues with showcasing what is surely a gem of a building well after construction is completely inexcusable. The word I get is that, although the official tour did not include the Weeks Building, some of the prospective students and their parents found themselves in the building (by accident?) and were BLOWN AWAY by what they saw.

I want to speak to someone to clarify my understanding of how this tour/no tour decision was explained to them, but I also want to shield them from any flak they might catch for telling these things to me. I'd be happy to discuss with you outside this forum (I thought we could DM on this site... guess not).

That’s fine as it wasn’t the make or break decider for my Son but it might have been for another kid who could end up some day being the next Robert Moses.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

No joke but i thought that was a Rutgers game until I looked up at the strands.

too full? bwg

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Your clueless regarding trademark law. RU is just protecting what is legally theirs. If they don't, they run the risk of losing it. You would probably be first in line also to rip the university if they lost the trademark by not taking action to protect it.

i'm questioning how one can trademark a block R in the first place. (and calling them dicks for doing so).

GENERIC.

there has to be 10,000 signs around the country with a capital block R on it, and have been for decades.

 

[Upstream]

i'm not addressing the "protecting" part.

i'm questioning how one can trademark a block R in the first place.

Same way you trademark a Block S

or a Block M

or a different Block M

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Same way you trademark a Block S

or a Block M

or a different Block M

maybe Cuse forgot to tell Stanford.

Minn's M is distinctive.

Mich's, not so much.

i wonder if UM is suing high schools all over the country using block Ms, and if so, hows that going.

like i posted above with Ill and IU,

absent being distinctive enough, i consider it generic.

RU can trademark anything they want.

but would it withstand a challenge.

i question whether it would withstand a challenge from those high schools if well funded.. if possibly not, it's bullying by money imo.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Looks like Colleges are getting more serious in protecting their logo.
Arizona high school removes logo after Texas Longhorns complaint
The Longhorn logo has been the pride of Payson High School and its sports teams for decades.
https://usatodayhss.com/2019/payson-high-school-cease-and-desist-letter-texas-logo

calling a generic block letter a "logo" is a stretch imo.

i don't consider the UT longhorn logo and the Rutgers block R equal in terms of deserving legal protection.

were the financial resources of these HSs and RU more on equal terms, i don't think this would be going down.

 

[Upstream]

absent being distinctive enough, i consider it generic.

RU can trademark anything they want.

but would it withstand a challenge.

i question whether it would withstand a challenge from those high schools if well funded, if possibly not, it's bullying by money imo.

A trademark attorney may be able to add more context here, but I don't think that a high school would be able to successfully challenge Rutgers' trademark for the reasons you've noted. Rutgers has used the trademark consistently for enough time, and has complied with other registration requirements, that the validity of the trademark registration for the reasons you claim is now incontestable under law.

However, Rutgers is at risk that the trademark could be contested under different grounds, which is why Rutgers has an obligation to police and protect the mark.

So when Rutgers notifies a high school that they are infringing on Rutgers' trademark, Rutgers is just doing what is required as a trademark owner to protect the mark. And the high school agreeing to stop infringing really has nothing to do with a high school being bullied. It more likely has to do with the high school contacting a trademark attorney, and after a $500 consultation learning that the high school really has no legal grounds to challenge Rutgers' trademark, regardless of how much money the high school wants to throw away on the cause.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

A trademark attorney may be able to add more context here, but I don't think that a high school would be able to successfully challenge Rutgers' trademark for the reasons you've noted. Rutgers has used the trademark consistently for enough time, and has complied with other registration requirements, that the validity of the trademark registration for the reasons you claim is now incontestable under law.

However, Rutgers is at risk that the trademark could be contested under different grounds, which is why Rutgers has an obligation to police and protect the mark.

So when Rutgers notifies a high school that they are infringing on Rutgers' trademark, Rutgers is just doing what is required as a trademark owner to protect the mark. And the high school agreeing to stop infringing really has nothing to do with a high school being bullied. It more likely has to do with the high school contacting a trademark attorney, and after a $500 consultation learning that the high school really has no legal grounds to challenge Rutgers' trademark, regardless of how much money the high school wants to throw away on the cause.

i'm not a trademark atty either, but know generic when i see it.

not sure what you think i said that supports RU trademarking an imo generic block R.

as for that consultation with an atty, i'm guessing it went more more like, "they probably have no legitimate claim, but they'll bury you in costs trying to fight their bottomless pockets".

the real harm here, is no school or business or organization or even individual is safe from this oppressive runaway greed, and perversion of our legal system..

 

[tico brown]

The Nebraska's N logo is trademarked. Cant get any more generic than that.

https://licensing.unl.edu/unl-branding

 

[Upstream]

i'm not a trademark atty either, but know generic when i see it.

not sure what you think i said that supports RU trademarking an imo generic block R.

as for that consultation with an atty, i'm guessing it went more more like, "they probably have no legitimate claim, but they'll bury you in costs trying to fight their bottomless pockets".

the real harm here, is no school or business or organization or even individual is safe from this oppressive runaway greed, and perversion of our legal system..

The thing that supports Rutgers trademarking their Block R is the fact that they actually were issued a trademark registration by the US Patent and Trademark office, and then after 5 years of continuous use, the trademark was deemed incontestable under US trademark law.

The fact that you don't think the trademark should have been issued is meaningless. It was issued and it is valid under law. What you think and $2.50 will get you a cup of lousy coffee.

And it doesn't really matter how much money a high school wants to throw away to claim that Rutgers shouldn't have been issued a trademark registration. Any halfway decent trademark attorney would tell them they don't have a case.

If I start manufacturing cars and call them Cadillac, I can be sure that General Motors will send me a cease and desist letter. I can claim that I named the cars after a city in Michigan or a mountain in Maine, so GM shouldn't have a trademark on the name. But I would lose against GM, not because they have deeper pockets, but because I don't have a valid case.

 

[rubaseball78]

i'm questioning how one can trademark a block R in the first place. (and calling them dicks for doing so).

GENERIC.

there has to be 10,000 signs around the country with a capital block R on it, and have been for decades.

Read up on trademark law. They are not being dicks as you say. Just protecting what is rightfully theirs.

 

[80yrdPacheco]

i'm questioning how one can trademark a block R in the first place. (and calling them dicks for doing so).

GENERIC.

there has to be 10,000 signs around the country with a capital block R on it, and have been for decades.

Have you seen the school, they where the same helmets and the have the same color. So what, if it was OSU, nobody would say shit.

 

[80yrdPacheco]

They only reason this out there because the high school put it out their for some sympathy. I pretty sure Rutgers has done this before and we don’t know about it. Now you have an asshole NFL hall of famer if I’m not mistaken talking shit on Twitter.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

The thing that supports Rutgers trademarking their Block R is the fact that they actually were issued a trademark registration by the US Patent and Trademark office, and then after 5 years of continuous use, the trademark was deemed incontestable under US trademark law.

The fact that you don't think the trademark should have been issued is meaningless. It was issued and it is valid under law. What you think and $2.50 will get you a cup of lousy coffee.

And it doesn't really matter how much money a high school wants to throw away to claim that Rutgers shouldn't have been issued a trademark registration. Any halfway decent trademark attorney would tell them they don't have a case.

If I start manufacturing cars and call them Cadillac, I can be sure that General Motors will send me a cease and desist letter. I can claim that I named the cars after a city in Michigan or a mountain in Maine, so GM shouldn't have a trademark on the name. But I would lose against GM, not because they have deeper pockets, but because I don't have a valid case.

A), i don't contest the trademark itself. i contest it's enforceability.

B), as for your GM analogy..

in this sign, i think GM could enforce a trademark on the script B if they wanted to have that script B as a Buick logo.

i don't think they could successfully enforce a trademark on the print capital B on the sign as a trademarked Buick logo.

---------------------------------------------------

how enforceable IU trademarking this is questionable imo.

they could bully Joe's Sweatshirts with deep pockets, but if Nike wanted to fight them on it, doubt IU would win that battle.

probably why official IU gear always has something else, such as the IU logo, on their block letter gear, but not on their script Indiana gear, which is distinctive without the logo.

 

[Upstream]

A), i don't contest the trademark itself. i contest it's enforceability.

B), as for your GM analogy..

in this sign, i think GM could enforce a trademark on the script B if they wanted to have that script B as a Buick logo.

i don't think they could successfully enforce a trademark on the print capital B on the sign as a trademarked Buick logo.

---------------------------------------------------

how enforceable IU trademarking this is questionable imo.

they could bully Joe's Sweatshirts with deep pockets, but if Nike wanted to fight them on it, doubt IU would win that battle.

probably why official IU gear always has something else, such as the IU logo, on their block letter gear, but not on their script Indiana gear, which is distinctive without the logo.

Now I understand your issue. You don't know what a registered trademark is.

 

[Jim_from_RU]

This is only an issue because it involves Rutgers. The media LOVES taking shots at RU.

 

[e5fdny]

This is only an issue because it involves Rutgers. The media LOVES taking shots at RU.

Two sides to that...

1) we hate it, LOL

2) media loves it because for better or worse putting “Rutgers” in the subject line (about anything) an it = clicks

All we have to do is win, not even WIN or WIN to get the good part of #2. We have already shown it’s possible and nobody gets as much credit for (lowercase) winning than we do.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Now I understand your issue. You don't know what a registered trademark is.

nice try.

come back when you actually have something.