Anyone see U of I associate AD's comments

[BCforISU]

about the team Bud Light cans in the Register?

("I don't think it's fuzzy. I think it's clear," said Mark Abbott, associate athletic director at the U of I.

He said the university doesn't allow its trademark to be used to sell alcohol, tobacco or weapons.

As for selling shot glasses at the campus bookstore, he said the product is targeted at alumni.

"A lot of people collect those," he said.)

Yep, I get it now totally clear. Shot glasses are only collector items, you are supposed to drink water out of them.......

 

[dustinal]

Well for what it's worth, I don't think ISU is too pleased about the colored cans either, but I know there are also officially licensed shots glasses with our logo on them. It's kind of hard to reconcile that if your argument against the cans is that it's a perceived endorsement of underage drinking.

Whether they'll admit it or not, I think the reason most of the colleges are upset has less to do with underage drinking and more to do with trademark i$$ues.

 

[Cyclone15]

about the team Bud Light cans in the Register?

("I don't think it's fuzzy. I think it's clear," said Mark Abbott, associate athletic director at the U of I.

He said the university doesn't allow its trademark to be used to sell alcohol, tobacco or weapons.

As for selling shot glasses at the campus bookstore, he said the product is targeted at alumni.

"A lot of people collect those," he said.)



This is totally not true.... Budweiser paid for the exclusive rights to use BOTH Iowa State and the University of Iowa logos for Budweiser POS (point of sales) signage, banners, team schedules..... I can get my hand on both schools licenced logos on such material... That's the story that should be reported. A CHECK was cashed by the Universities.. Sold out there logos... SO UNTRUE the statement he made above.
Yep, I get it now totally clear. Shot glasses are only collector items, you are supposed to drink water out of them.......

 

[Tank]

I didn't know that the use of a teams color, without actually using their trademark, is considered a trademark violation. If I am wrong, then please correct me but IMO, the Bud Light cans do not constitute a trademark violation b/c I saw no actual trademarks.

 

[dustinal]

I didn't know that the use of a teams color, without actually using their trademark, is considered a trademark violation. If I am wrong, then please correct me but IMO, the Bud Light cans do not constitute a trademark violation b/c I saw no actual trademarks.

It depends on whether the university has trademarked the colors, which they can do if they choose to. North Carolina has a trademark on the Tarheel Blue they use in their uniforms, logos, etc.

 

[Tank]

It depends on whether the university has trademarked the colors, which they can do if they choose to. North Carolina has a trademark on the Tarheel Blue they use in their uniforms, logos, etc.

Thanks.

 

[MoreCowbell]

It depends on whether the university has trademarked the colors, which they can do if they choose to. North Carolina has a trademark on the Tarheel Blue they use in their uniforms, logos, etc.

Right, but that's the specific CMYK color mix that's trademarked. The robin's egg Tiffany Blue is trademarked as well, but you can go one step lighter or darker and still get a close match without being on the trademarked color. I agree that it has to do with the schools not gaining any $$ from the promotion as opposed to being upset that it "promotes underage drinking."

 

[ClimbIowa]

Thanks.

But just using the colors won't get anyone in trouble, even if it's tarheel blue. There needs to be other indicia.

 

[dustinal]

But just using the colors won't get anyone in trouble, even if it's tarheel blue. There needs to be other indicia.

Not true, at least in the case of Tarheel Blue. It's a registered trademark for UNC, which means only UNC can legally use it. However, as MoreCowbell pointed out, one could easily alter the color slightly and get by with that. That's most likely what Budweiser has done with their cans.

 

[intrepid27]

Since official ISU licensed clothing now come in every shade of cardinal, red, and maroon imaginable I’d say the good folks at Bud are pretty safe from our perspective. I hate to be a whiner but how hard can this be to get a hold of? Every thin that has an ISU logo on it is suppose to be made und a licensing agreement?

 

[ClimbIowa]

Not true, at least in the case of Tarheel Blue. It's a registered trademark for UNC, which means only UNC can legally use it. However, as MoreCowbell pointed out, one could easily alter the color slightly and get by with that. That's most likely what Budweiser has done with their cans.

Smack apparel did not get in trouble for using a color. They got in trouble for using the color in addition to other inidicia of the teams (something else tied the color to the univeristy, not just the color itself). Has North Carolina won any lawsuits against clothing apparel companies selling blank t-shirts with Pantone 278? Maybe they have, but the case that specified colleges' trademark rights over color wasn't solely about color. You could be right in the end, but I haven't seen the case that elucidates the level of rights over color that you're espousing.

 

[ClimbIowa]

Since official ISU licensed clothing now come in every shade of cardinal, red, and maroon imaginable I’d say the good folks at Bud are pretty safe from our perspective. I hate to be a whiner but how hard can this be to get a hold of? Every thin that has an ISU logo on it is suppose to be made und a licensing agreement?

Very true. The Smack Apparel case specifically mentions that teams need to refrain from modifying their specific colors if they want to maximize their trademark protection.

 

[dustinal]

Smack apparel did not get in trouble for using a color. They got in trouble for using the color in addition to other inidicia of the teams (something else tied the color to the univeristy, not just the color itself). Has North Carolina won any lawsuits against clothing apparel companies selling blank t-shirts with Pantone 278? Maybe they have, but the case that specified colleges' trademark rights over color wasn't solely about color. You could be right in the end, but I haven't seen the case that elucidates the level of rights over color that you're espousing.

I'm starting to remember...you're a lawyer, aren't you? I should have figured.

I'll yield to you in this case, because what you're saying actually makes sense to me. Budweiser is calling the colored cans "tailgate cans" or "tailgate approved" or something along those lines. I think it's pretty clear they're selling selling them to appeal to fans of the colleges, and I can understand why the colleges would be upset about not getting a piece of that pie. But legally, there may be nothing the colleges can do about it.

 

[guitarchitect7]

about the team Bud Light cans in the Register?

("I don't think it's fuzzy. I think it's clear," said Mark Abbott, associate athletic director at the U of I.

He said the university doesn't allow its trademark to be used to sell alcohol, tobacco or weapons.

As for selling shot glasses at the campus bookstore, he said the product is targeted at alumni.

"A lot of people collect those," he said.)

Yep, I get it now totally clear. Shot glasses are only collector items, you are supposed to drink water out of them.......

Dude, you can go to family theme parks and fine shot glasses, I do think they are more considered collecters items when bought with those types of designs.