University Sues Student Newspaper To Prevent Release Of Sexual Assault Investigation Documents

from the stop-asking,-they-sued dept

Government transparency is once again in default operation mode. If you want the records you're seeking, you're welcome to sue us. Or, in this case, the government is more than happy to sue the requester, if that's what it takes to keep records from being released.

The University of Kentucky is suing its own student newspaper.

This comes after a five-month-long battle between UK and its student newspaper, the Kentucky Kernel, over open records relating to reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment by a university professor.

The student newspaper has asked for copies of investigative documents related to the assault and harassment allegations. The university has refused to hand over the requested documents, claiming doing so would violate the privacy of the accusers. It has continued to withhold the documents despite being told to release them by the state attorney general.

[T]he state attorney general ruled that UK should release the records with the names and personal identifiers of those involved omitted. But the university denied the request on the basis that it would be an invasion of privacy. The refusal is a violation of Kentucky’s Open Records Act, which states the university is not exempt from releasing these records once the investigation is closed…

The Kentucky Kernel isn't seeking to expose personal information. In fact, it already has copies of some of the documents, thanks to an anonymous source. But it's seeking the officially-redacted version from the university. If the school hopes to keep this version out of the student paper's hands, it needs to obtain a ruling that contradicts the state attorney general's decision. Hence the lawsuit, which isn't seeking monetary damages, but rather a declaration that the documents can be withheld in full.

In fact, the university is hoping to keep the documents from ending up anywhere else at all.

A university spokesman, Jay Blanton, told BuzzFeed News Aug. 23 that “Our University cannot — and should not — decide when it is appropriate to violate a victim-survivor’s privacy — and a victim-survivor’s trust — by providing information to the Office of the Attorney General, the Kernel(our student newspaper), or any other entity.”

One has to wonder why the university is so worried about the release of these documents. If it's done nothing wrong, then it has nothing to hide, right? It may be saying things about privacy, but the student newspaper already has a policy in place to withhold personal information about victims of sexual assault. And, once again, the paper is not seeking an unredacted copy that might expose this information if handed over by the school.

So, the excessive secrecy seems to indicate there's something in these documents that might make the school look bad. This could be due to the way it handled the investigation. Or maybe the school protected a staff member for far too long, only choosing to look into allegations once they could no longer be ignored. Whatever the case is, the optics are always bad when a public entity takes a requester to court to thwart an open records request.

Filed Under: foia, investigation, journalism, sexual assault
Companies: university of kentucky

Judge Recused In University Of Kentucky V. Kentucky Mist Moonshine Case Because He's A Kentucky Grad

from the getting-out-of-hand dept

We were just discussing the University of Kentucky's asshat-ish bullying attempts concerning Kentucky Mist Moonshine's gall in selling hats and t-shirts featuring the distillery's name and logo. The whole episode has been entirely silly from the outset, with the school essentially declaring itself the sole owner of the name of its home state for the purposes of its use on apparel. This attempt to throw aside even the question of actual customer confusion made the whole thing a strange power-play against a distillery, with some questioning how a trademark over a state's name could be granted in the first place. Kentucky Mist itself filed a lawsuit against the school, requesting that the trademark it has chosen to flaunt so brazenly be either declared invalid entirely or reformed to protect the school only against any attempts to actually be associated with the school as opposed to the state of Kentucky.

Again: none of this should be happening. If the University of Kentucky had simply kept its nose out of an unrelated business' business, no suit would have been filed. But now, as the silliness continues, we get news that the judge originally assigned to preside over the case has recused himself. Why? Because he's a graduate of UK.

Jim Francis, Kentucky Mist's attorney, had on Monday filed the motion for recusal, citing [Judge] Hood's status as a graduate of UK and its college of law. In addition, Francis said in his motion, Hood is a university donor designated as a UK Fellow and a member of the UK Alumni Association.

I can understand why Kentucky Mist would want the most impartial judge possible for its case, especially when Judge Hood was in some way affiliated with a school that has proven to be a complete bully on the very question the court was to decide. Still, I keep coming back to the fact that we shouldn't even be here. The fallout from the USPTO's unwillingness to cast a critical eye when it comes to trademark registrations is what's impacting all of this. If, instead of granting UK a trademark on the state-name "Kentucky" for apparel back in 1997, it had instead applied some critical thinking and understood what a massive problem such general and common-word trademarks might present, no recusal would have been necessary.

Instead, another judge will be assigned, and we might get the outcome, through the challenge of the trademark, that should have occurred back in the nineties.

Filed Under: joe hood, kentucky, moonshine, trademark
Companies: kentucky mist, university of kentucky

University Of Kentucky Battles Kentucky Mist Moonshine Maker Over Hats And T-Shirts

from the kentuck-you dept

We've already established that the University of Kentucky is sort of insane when it comes to overly restrictive trademark practices. We've also established that many other educational institutions are equally asshat-ish when it comes to trademark issues, in particular, for some reason, on any matter that in any way has to do with alcohol brands. The beer and liquor industries are dealing with their own trademark issues resulting from the explosion in craft brewing, but this is the story of how the University of Kentucky has managed to convince itself and, apparently, the USPTO that it has sole ownership of the very name of the state in which it is located for use on apparel.

This all started when Kentucky Mist Moonshine opened its doors recently and, along with ostensibly selling moonshine (mmm!), the company also created apparel to sell at the distillery. You know, hats and T-shirts and whatnot, all of which had "Kentucky Mist Moonshine" branded on them. That's when the University of Kentucky stuck its nose into the distillery's business for reasons I can't even begin to understand.

UK threatened legal action against Kentucky Mist Moonshine for its pursuit of a federal trademark registration for the Kentucky Mist Moonshine mark for hats, hooded sweatshirts, jackets, pants, shirts, shoes and socks in international trademark Class 25 based on its registration of the Kentucky Mist mark.

As a result of the threat letters, Kentucky Mist has filed suit against the university, requesting either that the school's trademarks be declared invalid or, the more likely outcome, reform the registration to limit the protection of the marks to apparel that clearly attempts to trade off of an implied endorsement or association with the school. This only makes sense in terms of the purpose of trademark law, of course, which centers around customer confusion and the ability of a brand to identify itself as the source to the consumer. Kentucky Mist apparel, on the other hand, does nothing to even remotely associate itself with the school. This is all about the control of the word "Kentucky," which is the name of a location and is so generic as to never deserve trademark protection to begin with.

The school's response amounts to stating that it registered the mark and that's the end of the story.

In an email message provided to the Herald-Leader on Oct. 29, UK spokesman Jay Blanton said the university has used the word Kentucky as a trademark to identify its athletic uniforms and various articles of clothing sold to fans since at least 1940. Blanton's letter said the university registered in 1997 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark offices for the word Kentucky for clothing, educational services and collegiate athletic services.

But that's not really true. Established trademarks are reviewed all the time, particularly in the cases of glaringly generic marks such as the name of a state or other geographical location. The message went on to note just how much money the university generates by licensing the use of the word "Kentucky" for clothing, claiming that their tradedmark is "incontestable." We'll find out shortly just how true that is, given that Kentucky Mist intends to contest it via this suit, but the larger point is that a government that permits so much restriction in the name of trademark needs to do a better job of not approving such general trademarks to begin with.

Filed Under: apparel, moonshine, trademark
Companies: kentucky mist moonshine, university of kentucky

University Of Kentucky Disputes 40-0 Trademark Owned By Someone Else While 2 Wins Away From Achieving That Record

from the confidence-is-high dept

For those of you that haven't been paying attention to the NCAA Men's College Basketball tournament this year, the University of Kentucky is, like, really good. The team, which entered the tournament without a loss on its record is attempting to become the first undefeated champion in several decades, the last occurring when Bobby Knight took a break from throwing chairs across the court to win it all for Indiana in 1976. They are currently two games away from achieving the first forty-and-zero season in college basketball history.

But they're already fighting trademark battles over a perfect season they have yet to attain. The school recently sent a cease and desist letter to one David Son, who has been using the "40-0" mark since 2013 and filed for a trademark back in October of that year.

That's the same time he filed for his company, 40-0 LLC, to be incorporated in the state of Kentucky before dissolving in August 2014. Records with the state show that on March 9 of this year, Son applied and was approved to have the company be reinstated and activated again.

"My client took all the steps he needed to take to establish ownership of 40-0," Son's lawyer, Brian McGraw, said. "There's no evidence that the University of Kentucky owns any rights to 40-0."

It strains credulity to suggest that the timing for the reinstatement and the potential run by the Kentucky basketball team is coincidental, and I'm unclear as to why the reinstatement of the company should be an argument over the previous abandonment of the mark. That said, two years isn't a particularly long stretch of time and, assuming Son's lawyer has done his homework, Kentucky's lack of claim to any mark makes a cease and desist overreach to say the least. Perhaps more interesting would be how this all works if Kentucky can point to some kind of trademark filing, given that the mark would consist both of an attainment the school can't yet lay claim to and that, should Kentucky indeed go 40-0, the numeric record seems to be factual information, likely undeserving of a mark in any case. As the ESPN article notes, opposition to Son's mark would seem to be the more logical reaction from the school, rather than a C&D letter.

What's strange is the accompanying remarks from Kentucky's legal team.

"We are well aware of third parties attempting to capitalize on the historic season of the University of Kentucky men's basketball team," said Jim Aronowitz, general counsel for Fermata Partners. "As the University's licensing agent, we are working to vigorously protect UK's trademark rights in the marketplace from those that use the institution's indicia without permission."

Except the history hasn't been made yet, counselor. Not that such prospective hubris is without precedent. The New England Patriots wanted to trademark "19-0" even after they failed to run the NFL table several years back. Is this a simple matter of trademark "squatting," with Son, who lives in Kentucky and is a self-admitted Kentucky basketball fan, realizing the likely outcome here? Sure, probably, though that claim is made more problematic given the years-old history of Son's mark. Still, factual information is factual information.

The two easiest ways to resolve this? Well, the school can file an opposition to the mark instead of sending off threat letters, or they could simply lose one of these next two games. Then there would be nothing to fight over.

Filed Under: 40-0, kentucky, sports, trademark
Companies: university of kentucky