clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

I'm trademarking 'C&F,' so don't call yourself that

New, 1 comment

First of all, C&F would like to ask a question of some Georgia bloggers: If we are such an unimportant part of your life, why did roughly half the Georgia blogs I follow take notice of a trademark lawsuit that involves the spelling-challenged Dawgs not at all? Y'all sure do pay a lot of attention to a school that you regard as your fifth- or sixth-most significant rival. Just saying.

In any case, yes, I'll mention it, because it's important.

The school recently lost a trademark case against "the other USC," Southern California, a battle that was over the use of the "SC" logo.

The schools agreed in 1982 that each could use "USC" as a logo. But in 2002, Southern California filed suit against South Carolina’s use of "SC" and last week gained a favorable ruling from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

C&F admits that not only is he not a trademark lawyer, he's not a lawyer at all. But how in the name of all that is holy could any human being with an ounce of rationality and intelligence confuse these two hats?

Scvssc_medium
Californians are supposed to be smarter than us, right?

And if that's trademark infringement, where do you draw the line? Should Florida State sue Fresno State, or vice versa?

Fsvsfs_medium
Look alike to me.

And we won't even go into Green Bay/Grambling State/Georgia.

The entire Southern Cal case is based on the hats being similar. Um, the schools' names are similar. The interlocking letters look entirely different. Since when did W. start naming Southern Cal alum to federal posts?

And why doesn't the patent and trademark office go do something more significant with its time, like tracking down someone selling pirated copies of Gigli?