Archive for Thursday, July 17, 2008
Verdict doesn’t make clear why some shirts OK
July 17, 2008
Advertisement
Topeka — "KUnfusing."
The jury's verdict in Kansas University's trademark infringement lawsuit was filed Wednesday, and it did little to clear up why the eight-member panel ruled against certain T-shirts sold by Joe-College.com and allowed others.
For example, the jury decided that "Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach" T-shirts infringed on KU's trademarks and is now on the banned list. But "Kansas Drinking Team" can remain for sale.
On Monday, members of the federal jury refused to speak to the media about their decisions as they left the courthouse after two days of deliberations.
Both sides in the case claimed victory, although they both said they were confused by some of the jury's calls.
"A quick view of them would say that you'd have questions about why the jury came to those decisions," said Jim Marchiony, KU associate athletic director. "But in a case like this, you understand that it's a complicated issue, the jury had a lot of things to think about and discuss, and we think they did a good job."
Jury instructions took more than an hour to read, covering legal issues that attorneys spend careers on.
The jury determined that Larry Sinks, owner of Joe-College.com, and Clark Orth, T-shirt printer, willfully infringed on KU's trademarks. It ordered payment to KU of $127,337 in profits and royalties from the store.
KU had raised allegations against 206 of Sinks' T-shirts and wanted $509,000 - $476,000 in Sinks' profits and $33,000 in royalties - plus punitive damages.
In the official verdict, the jury examined the T-shirts and checked which ones they thought infringed on KU's trademark. The jury had problems with about 25 percent of the shirts.
A design that said "Hawk Star" was OK, but "Lucky to be a Jayhawk" infringed. While "Kansas Drinking Team" was allowed by the jury, "Kansas Swim Team" (with pictures of sperm cells) wasn't.
Some shirts with the word Kansas on them didn't infringe, and some did, while some T-shirts with off-color messages directed at Kansas State University and Missouri did infringe, but others didn't.
Also, shirts that referred to individual players through their nicknames were seen as infringing, but one referring to "Super Mario" was not.
JoeCollege.com lawsuit analysis
JoeCollege.com lawsuit
- Jury finds for KU in Joe-College lawsuit (07-14-08)
- T-shirt trial stretches with complexities (07-13-08)
- Jury deliberations in JoeCollege. com case to continue Monday (07-10-08)
- Jury to resume deliberations Thursday morning in KU's trademark dispute with T-shirt maker (07-09-08)
- Department seeking win in court (06-22-08)
Top ads RSS
- Lawrence Memorial Hospital has the Following positions available: *Registered Vascular ...
- Senior Engineer The future of media is here!! KTKA 49 ...
- LPN & Restorative Aide Baldwin Healthcare is currently looking for ...
- Shawnee
- Education and Outreach Assistant The Community Mercantile is looking for ...
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Questioning authorities November 22, 2008 · 7 comments
- Turnpike ramps to reopen Monday at West Lawrence interchange November 21, 2008 · 5 comments
- Palin pardons turkey while birds killed in background November 22, 2008 · 3 comments
- On the street: Which do you prefer, apple or pumpkin pie? November 22, 2008 · 3 comments
- Dream drive November 22, 2008 · 3 comments
- A threat to all November 21, 2008 · 71 comments
- Blog: Interactive David Bowie Song Title Game November 6, 2008 · 279 comments
- Blog: Backyard Fence Blog 4: Cozy Up October 17, 2008 · 447 comments
- Sunflower Electric sues state leaders November 19, 2008 · 99 comments
- Civic illiteracy is alarming November 21, 2008 · 58 comments
- Reflections on the 25th anniversary of “The Day After” November 21, 2008
- Johnson County funds to help improve K-10 Connector service between Lawrence and Overland Park November 20, 2008
- Dream drive November 22, 2008
- Two banks in Lawrence call off merger talks November 21, 2008
- Sebelius considered to be a top contender for three cabinet positions November 21, 2008
- Palin pardons turkey while birds killed in background November 22, 2008
- Needless expense November 22, 2008
- Raised in Kansas: Why I voted for Obama November 15, 2008
- Two Texas players de-commit from Kansas November 22, 2008
- Teacher accepts surprise award November 22, 2008
17 July 2008
at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
spenmar (Anonymous) says…
lew perkins is going to keep suing joe College Till He Puts Them Out of Business-
The Judge Was In On The Fix - Did not allow any free speech argument to be made.
Why is the Journal World not covering this fact?
17 July 2008
at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Complication = sophistication = obfuscation = modern world of feelings-based reasoning = nothing
Don't try to justify any of this. Feelings need not have any rationality.
17 July 2008
at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
emilyhadley (Emily Hadley) says…
Calling these shirts trademark infringement is absurd. I have seen every shirt they sell (or sold) and not a single one infringes on KU's lengthy identity standards and trademarks.
This just makes me want to make sure I am not buying official KU merch. They are fighting their own fans.
I still like these:
http://trajansucks.mattkirkland.com/
17 July 2008
at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
Well, Duh. This jury didn't have the common sense of 8 house plants. Too many juries have a victim mentality. They vote for anyone claiming to be a victim of anything without any consideration for the legal principles involved.
A local shirt shop owes financial damages to KU for selling shirts reading “Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach”? Huh? Maybe they were talking about the LHS coach, or the Haskell coach. Now, if the New Guinean national soccer team had sued due to racial stereotyping of cannibals, I could at least understand the claim, even if I disagreed with it. But this? KU got most of what they wanted so they won't appeal. And Joe College can't afford to appeal. But someone interested in free speech and rational justice should do something about this lunatic verdict.
(Sorry. My apologies to the lunatics of the world. They make more sense than this verdict.)
17 July 2008
at 12:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eride (Anonymous) says…
“The Judge Was In On The Fix - Did not allow any free speech argument to be made.”
That is because it wasn't an issue of free speech… it was about the commercial infringement of trademarks…
I really find it hilarious how misinformed the majority of the posters on this board are. How you could believe that commercially infringing on another entity's trademarks is protected by free speech is beyond me. That argument would void all trademarks.
17 July 2008
at 12:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
coolmarv (Anonymous) says…
“A design that said “Hawk Star” was OK, but “Lucky to be a Jayhawk” infringed. While “Kansas Drinking Team” was allowed by the jury, “Kansas Swim Team” (with pictures of sperm cells) wasn't.”
Perhaps because KU has a swimming team (might be a club team?) and not a drinking team is why these were allowed/disallowed.
17 July 2008
at 12:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Byrne (Anonymous) says…
Ah, Joe College. The Dr Thunder of the t-shirt world.
17 July 2008
at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MattressMan (Anonymous) says…
So will a new sign be posted in the store stating
“None of the money made from thesale of these shirts goes to the University of Kansas, except for $127,337”
17 July 2008
at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansasbrandon (Anonymous) says…
Infringement or not I don't know but I do know that most of the t-shirts at Joe College are classless, rude and offensive. Frankly I'm embarrassed for the entire Jayhawks fan base when I see some of the shirts some of us choose to wear. It wouldn't bother me a bit if Joe College went out of business.
For any of you who buy these shirts thinking you're supporting the Jayhawks, well you're not. If you a real fan - wear real Jayhawks gear.
17 July 2008
at 12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
BABBOY (Anonymous) says…
“Well, Duh. This jury didn't have the common sense of 8 house plants. Too many juries have a victim mentality. They vote for anyone claiming to be a victim of anything without any consideration for the legal principles involved.”
Man, you do not know what your are talking about.
17 July 2008
at 12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Quigly (Anonymous) says…
The whole thing was a circus. What a joke and a waste of time.And once again LJW, nice reporting. CRAP
17 July 2008
at 1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Marchiony claimed that the jury had many complications to deal with in making their judgment. Not the least of which is the definition of infringement. Fuzzy concepts are the basis of the juries arbitrary separation of some things infringing and others not.
Maybe Larry will sell me his shirts reading “Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach”. I'll take them to St. Louis and sell them on Grand avenue outside the Busch Center to SLU students. After all, their basketball coach (Rick Majerus) probably could eat our basketball coach.
17 July 2008
at 1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
“Well, Duh. This jury didn't have the common sense of 8 house plants. Too many juries have a victim mentality. They vote for anyone claiming to be a victim of anything without any consideration for the legal principles involved.”
Please Newell, enlighten us all as to the legal principles involved.
Or perhaps you should stick to defining what constitutes the common sense of 8 house plants.
17 July 2008
at 1:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Oh also, the catholic lawyers are less likely to sue because they are busy with other lawsuits. How much for the shirts, Larry?
17 July 2008
at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…
“A local shirt shop owes financial damages to KU for selling shirts reading “Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach”? Huh? Maybe they were talking about the LHS coach, or the Haskell coach.”
Please tell me you're kidding. If you think those shirts may have been referring to LHS or Haskell then you are no smarter than the people on the jury.
17 July 2008
at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Soapdish (Anonymous) says…
I hate to say this, knowing the flamewar that will ensue, but I think the jury did a decent job here.
Looks like if it directly noted specific universities, Kansas (in arched font), the phrases “Rock Chalk” or “Go Big Blue,” or included a Jayhawk logo, they bounced it. I know I've left a few others out that I noticed earlier.
Do I support Joe College in all of this? Yes I do. I think they were given the hand slap that satisfied the University but allowed them to keep themselves in business as it seems the jury even thought this mess was frivolous (interjecting my opinion a bit there!).
Now if I may suggest: “Our college will sue your Joe College” as a shirt…
17 July 2008
at 1:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
KU wins, but not much. They think they put the big fear on potential infringers, but they didn't.
Sinks wins because he now has a bunch of shirts that have been ruled OK, however arbitrarily. The rest of the shirts will be packaged up and sold in, I dunno, Australia. Kansas football isn't the only team with a fat coach.
Or did the verdict demand that the offending shirts be destroyed under supervision of KU?
17 July 2008
at 1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fu7il3 (Anonymous) says…
The jury sucked. I don't think they could explain to you why they chose certain shirts if you asked. I don't care if they decide one way or the other, but at least have a reason.
17 July 2008
at 1:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
thebigspoon (Anonymous) says…
Most of the time jurys are people who weren't smart enough to figure out a way out of jury duty anyway.
17 July 2008
at 1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
The jury was terrible. If the shirt made a direct correlation to the school; KU, Jayhawk, etc, then ban it. Out coach can eat your coach? Really? The jury did not follow the rule of law. They followed what they considered offensive. That is vastly different from what infridged on KU.
17 July 2008
at 1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…
He should appeal.
“A design that said “Hawk Star” was OK, but “Lucky to be a Jayhawk” infringed.”
The University of Kansas does not possess ownership of the word “Jayhawk” as a trademark.
http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?…
17 July 2008
at 2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eride (Anonymous) says…
“The jury was terrible. If the shirt made a direct correlation to the school; KU, Jayhawk, etc, then ban it.”
If the jury didn't properly follow the instructions they were given that is grounds for an appeal. Instead of stating your opinion in the form of a fact maybe you should assume that since you don't actually know any of the relevant laws involved that you don't know enough to judge the performance of the jury.
17 July 2008
at 2:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Newell_Post (Anonymous) says…
bad_dog:
If “Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach” infringes KU's intellectual property rights, then KU must have protected that phrase in some way. This means KU must want to sell their own shirts reading “Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach”! Maybe they are smarter that we thought!
kansasbrandon:
I agree that many of the shirts were rude and offensive. So what? How does that infringe KU's IP rights if KU is not named? If KU wants to ban such shirts from its stadia and other facilities to protect the delicate sensibilities of its impressionable youth, then it should be able to do so. It shouldn't be able to claim financial damages when it is not harmed. This is about greed, not good taste.
Haiku_Cuckoo:
OK, maybe it was one of the many coaches of the Chiefs or Washburn or who knows which coach they are talking about? There are lots of morbidly obese coaches in the world. Some of them might even really be cannibals, given their loutish behavior.
All:
I have seen “Muck Fizzou” shirts in many cities other than Lawrence. Lots of people other than KU fans in lots of other cities wear “Muck Fizzou.” If the MU athletic corporation sued over that one, again I could at least understand the basis of their claim. Requiring a Lawrence shirt shop to pay damages to KU for “Muck Fizzou” when lots of other shops in lots of other towns do the same thing does indeed qualify for the houseplant IQ award of the year.
17 July 2008
at 2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fu7il3 (Anonymous) says…
You know enough to judge the jury because two shirts that are almost exactly the same got two different verdicts. Which means regardless of applicable laws, they got one or the other wrong.
Just look at the gallery. It is ridiculous.
17 July 2008
at 2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
“If the jury didn't properly follow the instructions they were given that is grounds for an appeal. Instead of stating your opinion in the form of a fact maybe you should assume that since you don't actually know any of the relevant laws involved that you don't know enough to judge the performance of the jury.”
Stop taking my comments out of context. Using one part of a comment to form an argument is bad. If the instructions told them to judge based on taste then this is a good ruling. Otherwise it is just confusing. How is it that two shirts with similar sayings are not both banned? From the outside looking in, it seems as if the jury just chose shirts to ban on taste and not the merit of the law.
17 July 2008
at 2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Trobs (Anonymous) says…
“Just look at the gallery. It is ridiculous.”
What gallery?
17 July 2008
at 2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Byrne (Anonymous) says…
http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/galler…
Man, he didn't even make an attempt on that one.
17 July 2008
at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bad_dog (Anonymous) says…
“If “Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach” infringes KU's intellectual property rights, then KU must have protected that phrase in some way. This means KU must want to sell their own shirts reading “Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach”! Maybe they are smarter that we thought!”
Who left your intellectual property unguarded? I'd call 911-no just use the non-emergency number.
17 July 2008
at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ehawk (Anonymous) says…
If the problem is selling the shirts, then give them away…with the purchase of a $15 Joe College bumper sticker.
Let the lawyers suck on that for a while.
17 July 2008
at 4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mcontrary (Anonymous) says…
The inconsistencies in this jury's rulings are ludicrous. Someone, somewhere. sometime (hopefully soon) must clarify the jury's rulings of what is and.or isn't an infringement.
17 July 2008
at 5:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kneejerkreaction (Anonymous) says…
Why was a jury used to determine technical infringments on complicated intellectual property issues? A couple of legal experts in trademark infringement would seem to be more appropriate. These “expert” trademark jurors are all over the field. Obviously Joe C. can't afford to appeal this kangaroo jury's decision, 'cause their logic is Swiss cheese. The judge was asleep at the wheel on this one.
17 July 2008
at 5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
I think the poor decision of the jury is reflected most accurately in this picture:
http://www2.ljworld.com/photos/galler…
For those of you that don't bother to look, it is a display of shirts with nothing more than the word “Kansas” printed on the front—in simple block letters with no arching—in about every color under the sun….red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet, purple, black, etc…
So in other words, the University of Kansas has total copyright authority over any use of the word “Kansas” based on this ruling.
That, in my opinion, is the most insane thing I have ever heard.
17 July 2008
at 5:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Byrne (Anonymous) says…
But, logicsound04, it says the jury found for the defendant on that one, which I think is the opposite of what you're arguing.
17 July 2008
at 5:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
sdinges (Anonymous) says…
It seems they should have had to offer some reasoning behind which shirts were chosen. It's like they threw them all in a pile and said “Well, let's just say the first 50 we pick up are infringing and then go home for dinner.”
How on Earth is Joe College (or anyone else!) supposed to avoid copyright infringement in the future when there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the choices?
17 July 2008
at 9:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
devobrun (Anonymous) says: “Don't try to justify any of this. Feelings need not have any rationality.”
Completely agree.
sdinges (Anonymous) says: “How on Earth is Joe College (or anyone else!) supposed to avoid copyright infringement in the future when there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the choices?”
They can't, but neither can the University, it's a coin toss. I can just hear the conversation between the lawyers, “I know what you're thinking. “Is this infringing or not?” Well, to tell you the truth, given this verdict and in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a $4 million dollar copyright claim, the most dangerous lawsuit in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?”
kansasbrandon (Anonymous) says: “Infringement or not I don't know but I do know that most of the t-shirts at Joe College are classless, rude and offensive. Frankly I'm embarrassed for the entire Jayhawks fan base when I see some of the shirts some of us choose to wear. It wouldn't bother me a bit if Joe College went out of business.”
I am embarrassed for the people who buy those shirts, not the entire KU nation. Wouldn't hurt my feelings if KU fans got some class and stopped buying their products and Joe College folded like a cheap suit. On the other heavy hand, KU's actions isn't a cause for pride either.
Soapdish (Anonymous) says: “Now if I may suggest: “Our college will sue your Joe College” as a shirt:”
Only if it also says “Kansas Law”
17 July 2008
at 10:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Sigmund (Anonymous) says…
Does it not appear strange to anyone else that the “official” name of the school is, “The University of Kansas,” (UK) and NOT “Kansas University,” (KU)?
17 July 2008
at 11:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KSA_21_3503 (Anonymous) says…
“The University of Kansas does not possess ownership of the word “Jayhawk” as a trademark.”
Try again:
1:
Word Mark jayhawks
Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: printed awards, [ printed bank checks, ] printed cards, [clipboards,] decals, [ paper flags,] pencils, pens, photograph albums, playing cards, postcards, prints, stickers and transfers. first use: 19630000. first use in commerce: 19630000
IC 020. US 002 013 022 025 032 050. G & S: bag chairs, cushions, director's chairs, plastic flags, frames, furniture, [ mini-blinds for windows, ] pillows, plaques, non-metallic key chains, seats, [ wooden artifact boxes ] and wood signs. first use: 19630000. first use in commerce: 19630000
IC 021. US 002 013 023 029 030 033 040 050. G & S: beverage containers, plastic coasters, coolers, glasses, plastic mugs, squirt bottles, non-precious metal tankards, [ plastic swizel sticks ] and thermal mugs. first use: 19630000. first use in commerce: 19630000
Mark Drawing Code (1) typed drawing
Serial Number 75975421
Filing Date July 15, 1994
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 11, 1997
Registration Number 2059529
Registration Date May 6, 1997
Owner (registrant) university of kansas, the state educational institution kansas Strong Hall, University of Kansas Lawrence KANSAS 660451500
Attorney of Record Thomas H. Van Hoozer
Prior Registrations 1109715
Type of Mark trademark
Register principal
Affidavit Text sect 15. sect 8 (6-yr). section 8(10-yr) 20070614.
Renewal 1st renewal 20070614
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
17 July 2008
at 11:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KSA_21_3503 (Anonymous) says…
2:
Word Mark jayhawks
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: T-shirts, sweatshirts, jackets, sports shirts, golf shirts, replica athletic uniforms, shorts, sweaters, belts, mittens, gloves, hats, visors, neckties, leather shoes and slippers. first use: 19630000. first use in commerce: 19630000
Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) standard character mark
Serial Number 77069556
Filing Date December 21, 2006
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition March 25, 2008
Registration Number 3443532
Registration Date June 10, 2008
Owner (registrant) The University of Kansas educational institution kansas Strong Hall, University of Kansas Lawrence KANSAS 66045
Attorney of Record Thomas H. Van Hoozer
Prior Registrations 1109715;2059529;2827452
Type of Mark trademark
Register principal
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
3:
Word Mark rock chalk jayhawk
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & s: offering courses at the college and graduate level; providing intercollegiate athletic exhibitions; and presenting theater and concert productions. first use: 18860000. first use in commerce: 18860000
Mark Drawing Code (1) typed drawing
Serial Number 76508031
Filing Date April 21, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition January 6, 2004
Registration Number 2827452
Registration Date March 30, 2004
Owner (registrant) university of kansas, the educational institution kansas Strong Hall, University of Kansas Lawrence KANSAS 66045
Attorney of Record Robert D. Hovey
Prior Registrations 1109715;2059529
Type of Mark service mark
Register principal
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
17 July 2008
at 11:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
I coulda sworn that picture said “found for the plaintiff” earlier. I thought I even double-checked it because I was so shocked.
Guess not.
I think I'm losing my mind.
18 July 2008
at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Freestater456 (Anonymous) says…
kansasbrandon says “Infringement or not I don't know but I do know that most of the t-shirts at Joe College are classless, rude and offensive. Frankly I'm embarrassed for the entire Jayhawks fan base when I see some of the shirts some of us choose to wear. It wouldn't bother me a bit if Joe College went out of business.
______________________________________________
Listen Joe College isn't asking you to buy the shirts. And offensive to whom, I'm a K-State fan and i find them quite hilarious (maybe not all of us do but people need to learn how to take a joke, you for example). But are you really saying that just because a man put something on a shirt that you found rude that you wouldn't mind if he lost his way of life. Now who is being a Jacka**!!!
21 July 2008
at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ESM (Anonymous) says…
This is an incredibly bad verdict! Trademark protection is supposed to be specific in scope, this jury sounds unqualified to make these decisions and as a result their verdict is all over the map.
So now its offensiveness that determines trademark infringement? Our Coach Can Eat Your Coach (bad) vs. Our Coach Beat Anorexia (good) is going to make the Kansas courts a national laughingstock! At what point does this become a First Amendment argument?
The store should appeal but my guess is they don't have the money to fight.
And the KU lawyer's argument that posting disclaimers was an admission of guilt was so crass and cheap that he should be ashamed.