O.S.U.'s fetish with “The” doesn’t stop with the football team/university as a whole.
There’s the James Cancer Center at O.S.U., which the school doesn’t want you to refer to as such.
No, it’s The James Cancer Center, or The James (as it appears on their stationery).
It becomes lots more distinguished when it’s The James, especially when you use a patrician tone of voice.
You are way more serious about this than I am, so I’m going to bow to your, um, expertise.
mmm
This is the biggest parcel of hogwash I’ve seen in a long time.
If it ever comes up in conversation I’m gonna call it “The Jimmy”.
mmm
Hmmmp, I this doesn’t cause any issues with how we describe our expressways in Southern California.
THE 101
THE 405
THE 210
I wonder what would happen if they took a cue from Peanuts and called themselves the Very Little League.
Are you asking for a serious answer or are you just joshing?
An unaired (but on the DVD) episode of the animated TV series version of Clerks was allowed to say “Little League,” but had to call it something like “Junior Major League” when it appeared on the screen.
Of course, all of these pale in comparison to what the International Olympic Committee does to protect the trademark “Olympics,” right down to demanding that Greek restaurants that use the work “Olympic” change their names. The one event not controlled by the IOC that gets away with it: the Special Olympics.
You can certainly buy clothes with the name of the band on it.
If I saw a shirt with just the word “THE” on it, I’d probably think of the band, first. Does that count as brand confusion? Admittedly, I’m unlikely to attempt to get an undergrad degree from a The The concert, or expect a live music show if I’m sitting in a econ 101 class room in Idaho.
They threatened to sue the makers of the card game Legend of the Five Rings, because they had a picture of five rings on the back of the cards.
I wonder if/when they will go after publishers of Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings.
Maybe Musashi’s ghost can duel someone at the IOC over rights to the logo. He never lost a duel so I’d bet on the ghost.
Right, but is that the use of “The” as an indicator of source for the T-shirts? Does this use and significant uses like it make it impossible for “The” to function as an indicator of source for T-shirts?
You’ll never get a definitive answer to that question just talking about it on the internet. Ultimately, trademark rights are about positioning yourself for a fight. And there are several stages at which a fight can happen.
O.S.U. has an application before the P.T.O. Well, someone can challenge that application in an opposition proceeding. But that someone has to have standing, that is, it has to be someone who either already claims rights in a confusingly similar trademark or stands to face a legal threat from O.S.U. over “The.”
Well, say O.S.U. wins the opposition proceeding and the P.T.O. issues a registration. Well, that’s not the end of it. Someone can bring a cancellation proceeding and argue that the P.T.O. made a mistake and should cancel it. Say O.S.U. wins a cancellation proceeding. That’s not the end of it.
Someone can go to a federal court and say, “Hey, the P.T.O. got it wrong!” and ask the court to direct the P.T.O. to cancel the registration.
Or, the registration itself need not be directly challenged. If O.S.U. threatens someone over “The,” E can go to a court and say, “O.S.U.'s trademark claim is bogus.” Or, E can wait for O.S.U. to sue, and then argue as a defense “O.S.U.'s trademark claim is bogus.”
It’s only after a court rules on the merits that we really know what O.S.U.'s real trademark rights are. But if no one in competition with O.S.U. is willing to spend the time and money fighting over it, that day won’t come.
And the longer O.S.U. goes without a legal challenge, the likelier it is that any eventual challenge will be unsuccessful. For one thing, if O.S.U. gets a registration, after five years, O.S.U. becomes immune to certain (but not all) arguments.
Okay, just in case you aren’t joshing and really are wondering –
Trademark law regulates the use in commerce of trademarks. When you walk around in your own life saying “the 210,” you’re not using a trademark in commerce in a way that creates a likelihood of confusion with someone else’s trademark.
This is a critical concept and one that causes a lot of people to get unnecessarily outraged over trademarks.
Trademark law is not a regulation of speech in general. For example, the Lego company would love it if you said “Lego-brand toy blocks” all the time and only in reference to their legitimately branded blocks and avoided calling them “Legos,” and especially avoided calling someone else’s blocks “legos” in a generic sense.
But you can do it all day every day for the rest of your life. You can even write a book that does it. A newspaper can go around printing “Legos” and “legos” all it wants, and the Lego company will never get any relief for it.
That’s because there’s no use in commerce here. Nobody is selling goods or services using “Legos” or “legos” as a source indicator (i.e., brand name). They can send out letters and publish websites complaining about “trademark misuse,” but you know what? Trademark misuse isn’t a thing in the law. So tough shit. Ultimately, if the public decides that “legos” is more useful as a generic term rather than as a brand name, then the Lego company is screwed.
The Olympic Committee’s trademark are very special. You might think of them as “super trademarks.” The reason is that they have their very own statute, the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act of 1998, 36 U.S.C. Sec. 220506, which gives them rights that ordinary trademark owners don’t have.
And there are only a few exceptions–for example, businesses that have been using Olympics trademarks continuously since before 1950, businesses whose obviously are named after the Olympic mountain range, and businesses located west of the Cascade Mountains in Washington state.
I went to Olympic High School and Olympic College. Of course, I’m from western Washington.
Also we have an Olympic Peninsula (which is a huge chunk of land, about 3,600 square miles), and our state capitol is Olympia. We seem to love that name.
In my field of work, I deal with of OSU graduates, because there aren’t a lot of universities that offer the necessary certificates and qualifications. This means that I frequently hear people referring to “THE Ohio State University.” Every single time they do it, I feel like punching them in the mouth.
It would be a challenge to not pronounce the word that way in all of my further discussions with them.
“Next we will schedule a meeting with **THE **Division Manager in order to plan out **THE **process analysis. We should make sure to pull in **THE **development team, as well as change management. But first, let me show you where **THE **bathroom and break room are.”
A thought occurs to me: One sometimes hears of an overzealous corporate lawyer sending a cease-and-desist letter to someone who’s been using the same name or other trademark since before the lawyer’s company even existed. Usually, the recipient of the letter points out their priority, and it ends there. But couldn’t such cases lead to an open-and-shut countersuit? The recent company, after all, is arguing that the two are sufficiently similar to cause confusion, and in a sufficiently-similar context. But if the smaller trademark holder is actually the older one, that would then mean that the big, newer trademark holder is actually in infringement.
This can happen. It often leads to a condition called “reverse confusion.”
Of course “open-and-shut” is rare. How much smaller is the prior user? There are cases in which the prior user is so small that its trademark rights are limited to a small geographic region, and the later, larger user basically gets the rights in the rest of the country.
In THE mouth.
Joke currently making the rounds in these parts:
“Honey, how do I wash my sweatshirt?”
“What color is it and what does it say?”
“Scarlet and gray, and it says “THE Ohio State University””
“HOT WATER AND FIVE CUPS OF BLEACH!”
Not really. A trademark right can come into existence by just being registered.
Not in U.S. law. A registration application is always supported by the claim that “we are actually using this in commerce as a trademark” or “we plan to do that very soon.” If you fail to follow up with actual proof of use in commerce, you’ll lose your registration.
In particular when it comes to something like color, you have to additionally support your claim of distinctiveness, because a color by itself is not inherently distinctive. You have to have evidence of “secondary meaning.”
