Should ISPs And Registrars Be Responsible For Bogus Online Pharmaceutical Sites?

You Can't Be A Fan Of University Of Cincinnati's Sports Teams Unless You've Paid The Proper License

from the don't-wear-red-and-black dept

Thu, Jan 7th 2010 1:10am — Mike Masnick

In response to our recent post about whether or not a company like Black & Decker could legally resell sporting event tickets without being an "official sponsor" of the event, Public Citizen's Paul Alan Levy wrote about how it wasn't that long ago that anyone could make their own fan gear. And then greed set in:

The case is reminiscent of a revenue grab by sports teams in the 1980's. At one time, anybody could make up a shirt that said "Dallas Cowboys" or "Boston Red Sox", and then wear it or sell it. The fans wearing those shirts didn't care one whit about whether the Cowboys or Red Sox made the shirt or had taken a cut of the shirt-makers' revenue. But Major League Baseball and the National Football League, armed with surveys created by consumer survey expert Jacob Jacoby, started filing lawsuits claiming that some minority of fans would automatically assume that the Cowboys or Red Sox had endorsed or at least approved of the shirt sellers. By winning a couple of cases, they created a new rule of law -- you can't sell shirts showing support for a team without paying the team off for the privilege of doing so.

That has since expanded further and further, including college sports teams as well. Reader Sys Admin alerts us to a story out of Cincinnati, where the University of Cincinnati is being so aggressive in enforcing these sorts of claims that it says pretty much any type of clothing that might be mistaken as supporting the team (t-shirts with red and black? watch out...) it needs a license. The University says it doesn't matter if the University's name or logo isn't on the clothing at all. Even a shirt that says "Go Cats!" needs a license. Even worse, they're not just looking to stop people from selling such clothing, they're happily putting them in jail for it.

Be careful what teams you cheer for, and what color clothes you wear when you do...

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: colors, fans, sporting events, trademark, university of cincinnati

28 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Andrew F (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 12:26am

I Hate Cats
What if I sold a red and black t-shirt that said "I Hate the University of Cincinnati (and their cats)"? It's not trademark abuse, because no moron in a hurry would ever assume that the University of Cincinnati endorsed such a shirt. As for copyright, adverse criticism is protected under fair use.

I foresee a future in which local peddlers of team gear start catering to visitors rooting for the opposing team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete Austin, 7 Jan 2010 @ 1:50am

Re: I Hate Cats
@Andrew: exactly. Instead of selling t-shirts labelled "Go Cats" to supporters, sell shirts labelled "Cats Suck" to opponents. Include a picture of a moth-eaten cat licking its own genitals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cat Hater, 7 Jan 2010 @ 5:45am
  
  Re: Re: I Hate Cats
  I was thinking along the same lines with "Go Suckit Cats".
  And then there is always this: (seems like a Win-Win to me).
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_time_you_masturbate..._God_kills_a_kitten
  
  BTW Cat Stevens thinks infringing is bad too.
  
  Frickin' felines!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - alex, 7 Jan 2010 @ 6:52am
    
    Re: Re: Re: I Hate Cats
    I think you meant Yusuf Islam. Cat Stevens is dead to the world.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2010 @ 5:47am
  
  Re: Re: I Hate Cats
  So, your hypothetical shirt pictures a cat instead of a bearcat to avoid any further trademark issues? Genius!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2010 @ 3:46am

(t-shirts with red and black? watch out...) it needs a license. The University says it doesn't matter if the University's name or logo isn't on the clothing at all.

Air Jordan watch out

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:GQ0df7Woo9cTDM%3Ahttp://www.nikenew.com/images/air-jordan- 1-i-black-varsity-red-1.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:), 7 Jan 2010 @ 4:18am

That is great!
I think it is great.

Hope this happens a lot more often so people start to pay attention to the insanity that IP laws have become.

Those things will hurt any economy and will start hurting the public and when that happens law or no law attitudes will change.

People will start discriminating more about what they do and who they support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 7 Jan 2010 @ 4:29am

Go Hokies!
This is a sad situation, but at least the Hokies beat them in the Orange Bowl last year. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just saying..., 7 Jan 2010 @ 4:32am

I think that if I were in charge of things over in Cincinnati I would be more concerned winning a bowl game than suppressing fan gear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2010 @ 6:12am

Remember in that "Grand Unified Theory of Free" or whatever post how you had "merchandise" in the list of scarce items?

Guess that's out now, for hats, T-shirts, coffee mugs, and so forth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hulser (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 7:04am
  
  Re:
  That's actually a very good point. If your new business model for making money from your infinite good is to sell related scarce goods, isn't this business model undermined by not being able to control the scarce good? With more advanced devices, like the iPhone, it's not so easy to be a copy cat. You may be able to copy some of the features, but it's harder to copy other things, like customer support levels or even the prestige from owning a particular product. But what about (looooooots of) t-shirts? Doesn't something as simple as a t-shirt lend itself to being copied? Nobody needs support for a t-shirt and the "prestige" comes from what's on the t-shirt, not the t-shirt itself.
  
  Sure, there are other scarce items which can't be copied that can be sold, such as lunch with the artist or a chance to sing on the album. But, it does seems like not being able to control your trademark removes one of the popular pillars of the new "sell scarce products" model.
  
  (The issue of course is where to draw the line. "Go cats!" on a t-shirt? Meh, seems OK. "Go UC Bearcats!" on a t-shirt? That gets a little more murky.)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Vincent Clement, 7 Jan 2010 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The merchandise is not necessarily scare. Blank T-shirts are pretty cheap to manufacture. The scare item would be the sale of "Official" t-shirts by the University of Cincinnati.
    
    Sure, you could buy a knock-off, but that may open you to being called out by 'real' fans. It may not be worth the ridicule.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim C, 7 Jan 2010 @ 6:38am

Cease and Desist
The University of South Carolina should be able to put a stop to this. Our school colors are Garnet and Black. The "red" and black of the University of Cincinnati is obviously a rip off of our colors. Few morons in a hurry would distinguish between Garnet and red. Therefore they must immediately stop using their colors.

(as many people cannot readily detect it online, heavy sarcasm is being used)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
isaac Kotlicky (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 6:39am

I smell a franchise opportunity...
OO! Create disclaimer T-Shirts that specifically state that the team does not endorse this fan T-shirt:
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX University
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX Band
* This t-shirt is not endorsed by XXX Company

in BIG contrasting letters right in the front in order to avoid confusion. That way, nobody can claim false endorsement.

Then we can add an optional clause on the back:
XXX Team/University/Band/Company were/are idiots for punishing their fans.

Or something.

DIBS! So don't you all be stealing my idea. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2010 @ 6:57am

lolcats
ftw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ReallyEvilCanine, 7 Jan 2010 @ 7:14am

fUCk 'em.
You would think a university with a first tier law school would know better but UC is rather notorious for its blatant violation of law and ethics wherever possible, from slashing professors to cover the $17M deposit needed to build an "Ivy league class" stadium for their 82nd-ranked football team to illegal land swaps and tax dodges used to buy up adjoining properties and slap up unneeded buildings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 8:32am
  
  Re: fUCk 'em.
  I would have said more lawyers=more law abiding to be incorrect. It generally seems to be the other way around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
joseycarr, 7 Jan 2010 @ 7:27am

University of Cincinnati Brand
As an alumni, I shiver at the thought my UC has been "branded" and has become more about money than about its essence. UC, in times gone by, was about education, integrity, commitment to one another and working toward a common goal to better our community and our world. Now, it will cost you to show these things...now it's all about the money! SHAME ON YOU! Where are the grownups in this endeavor...have you sold our collective soul for an almighty buck...and not even toward UC's ultimate goal, education!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palmyra (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 8:20am

So help me out here.
If I wanted to make shirts showing an alligator ripping apart a cat in a bowl of sugar I would have to get permission from UC and have to pay them a fee? :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Anti-Mike (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 9:16am

Title is sort of misleading
You Can't Be A Fan Of University Of Cincinnati's Sports Teams Unless You've Paid The Proper License

you can be a fan, you just can't make your own cheap knockoff official products.

Aren't t-shirts and other things like this the scarce goods that are suppose to pay the bills in the future of entertainment?

You can't have it both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Jan 2010 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: Title is sort of misleading
  You can't have it both ways.
  Neither can they.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Vincent Clement, 7 Jan 2010 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re: Title is sort of misleading
  By definition a knockoff is not an official product. The scarce item here is not the t-shirt or even the things printed on that shirt. It's the fact that it is the official t-shirt.
  
  You can buy knockoffs of plenty of sports teams if you look hard enough. "Real fans" will typically spend the extra money to get the official good anyways.
  
  Funny how you believe that Google will pay a price with the whole Nexus trademark/copyright dispute, but it's okay for the University of Cincinnati to piss off it's fans.
  
  Who is having it both ways?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btr1701 (profile), 7 Jan 2010 @ 6:48pm
  
  Re: Title is sort of misleading
  The idea that a university can prohibit the sale of anything that's red and black or that references a cat is idiotic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 7 Jan 2010 @ 10:44am

the cats
they're a second rate team from a third rate city.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dwg, 24 Aug 2011 @ 11:59am

Late to this car rodeo, but...
...notice what the Ninth Circuit did to this in Fleischer Studios v. A.V.E.L.A. A nice turn-around for the fans, looks like. Sometimes, you just have to wait a while for the old guys to get it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sophia, 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:04am

What about bodybuilding clothes? Do supporters of that sport have to pay the participants too? I noticed that every sport is implementing this new rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sophia, 17 Dec 2012 @ 3:04am

What about bodybuilding clothes? Do supporters of that sport have to pay the participants too? I noticed that every sport is implementing this new rule of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Leah Wilkin, 11 Feb 2013 @ 5:48pm

you can't sell shirts showing support for a team without paying the team off for the privilege of doing so. - that's not right. You're basically paying a team to show them your support - solicitation much? I can buy gym clothes and print "University of Cincinnati" and sell them anytime, what's wrong with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]