Auburn's 3rd Grader Paw rendering is not a violation of our

Someone could change just a few words of one of your songs for "parody." see the Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, Inc. Where two live crew was ripping people's songs... Also, Weird Al makes a living out of doing just that.

Clemson does not have the use of any "paw" logo copyrighted... Rather, Clemson has the exact paw logo as we see it appear on Clemson merchandise copyrighted. This means that Clemson doesn't own outright the ability to use a paw to represent our athletics whereby no other school could use a paw without violating the copyright. Clemson aggressively protects the illegal use of its own paw with the exact specifications that the paw contains... or ones that are close. The Auburn Paw is not even a close representation of "our" paw... it doesn't have the notch, the tilt, or the rigid edging. It merely looks like a crude "parody" of the paw we use... It is not a copyright violation under the law. If it was, you best believe Clemson would be sending cease and desist letters to Auburn about it.

cu1981fans

Orange Blooded [4896]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 5278

Joined: 8/24/11

I don't think that's entirely accurate. "Confusion" is

Aug 11, 2015, 3:22 PM

the standard. Another tiger paw does not have to be exactly like ours. Likelihood of Confusion is further defined by the Polaroid Factors:

The Polaroid Factors

When determining likelihood of confusion, courts use several factors derived from a 1961 case. (Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elecs. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961).) These factors, sometimes known as the “Polaroid factors,” may vary slightly as federal courts apply them throughout the country. The factors are intended as a guide, and not all factors may be particularly helpful in any given case.

Strength of the senior user’s mark. The stronger or more distinctive the senior user’s mark, the more likely the confusion.
Similarity of the marks. The more similarity between the two marks, the more likely the confusion.
Similarity of the products or services. The more that the senior and junior user’s goods or services are related, the more likely the confusion.
Likelihood that the senior user will bridge the gap. If it is probable that the senior user will expand into the junior user’s product area, the more likely there will be confusion.
The junior user’s intent in adopting the mark. If the junior user adopted the mark in bad faith, confusion is more likely.
Evidence of actual confusion. Proof of consumer confusion is not required, but when the trademark owner can show that the average reasonably prudent consumer is confused, it is powerful evidence of infringement.
Sophistication of the buyers. The less sophisticated the purchaser, the more likely the confusion.
Quality of the junior user’s products or services. In some cases, the lesser the quality of the junior user’s goods, the more harm is likely from consumer confusion.
related products and services.

At the very least I hope Clemson's lawyers are challenging the City of Auburn.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

The way I understand trademark laws AU is doing nothing...

My understand of copyright law

I thought our specific version was trademarked...but ours

The paw is trademarked by Clemson. The standard is

You mean to tell me someone can change a few words to one

Yes actually... in certain circumstances...

I don't think that's entirely accurate. "Confusion" is

Even if this standard controls, the problem with the AU paw

i would argue the "good" is the university of Auburn

It's clear...

I'm 2/3 a lawyer minus the bar exam... haha

Actually

Link broke in the last one

sue them anyway, even if we can't win. At least we will

TigerBoard POTD