Re: Coots continue with their identity crisis...

Lol, this was likely lifted from their press release but show their logic here.

Notice a spelling or grammar error in this article? Click or tap here to report it. Please include the article's headline.

USC announces new streamlined logo, branding to change in 2023

"The spirit mark will provide versatility in promoting the university in non-academic settings."

"Promote the university"

in a non-academic standing.

wut?

How is any "university" ever in a non-academic standing?

Meanwhile on an athletics contract, our coach said

"This agreement is representative of what has been collectively built here and the success we've had both academically and athletically. It is a reflection of the All In commitment of so many people, including our players, our staff, our fans, our administration and our University leadership. While I am certainly proud of our accomplishments on the field, the most rewarding part remains the relationships forged within this program and the ability to positively impact those around us."

FutureDoc

110%er [6825]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 6349

Joined: 2018

Re: All that cr@p over the USC initials started when

Oct 26, 2022, 1:48 PM

NOPE! The coots didn't do their homework and then wet the bed.

Actually the COOT tried to trademark the "USC". SoCal said "sorry, been using it" and rather than dropping the OBVIOUS the coots said that "SC" could only mean "South Carolina" and then proceeded to MAKE SoCal's case. Worse, Socal USC already held that trademark.

Coots tried to grab USC and LOST https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1497594.html

FindLaw's United States Federal Circuit case and opinions.

Case opinion for US Federal Circuit UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

FindLaw's United States Federal Circuit case and opinions.
Case opinion for US Federal Circuit UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.

South Carolina filed U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 75,358,031, seeking registration of its Carolina Baseball Logo mark, shown below:

South Carolina sought registration for use of the mark on “clothing, namely, hats, baseball uniforms, T-shirts and shorts,” which are defined as Class 25 goods.1 See 37 C.F.R. § 6.1. The trademark examiner, finding that the mark appeared entitled to registration, published it for opposition.

Southern California opposed registration of South Carolina's mark. Southern California argued, among other things, that the registrations for its own Standard Character Mark (Registration No. 1,844,953 ('953 Registration)) and Athletic Interlock Mark (Registration No. 2,683,137 ('137 Registration)) had priority over South Carolina's proposed registration and that South Carolina's proposed mark would create a likelihood of confusion with the ′953 and ′137 Registrations. Southern California's ′953 Registration protects the letters “SC” in standard character form, and its ′137 Registration protects the mark shown below:

South Carolina counterclaimed for cancellation of Southern California's ′953 Registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), asserting that the letters “SC” falsely suggest an association with the State of South Carolina.

....

Not only that but the Coot's claimed supported USC!

Indeed, South Carolina, in the context of another issue, submitted evidence showing that at least sixteen other universities and colleges represent themselves as “SC.” J.A. 33. In light of this evidence, South Carolina did not satisfy its burden on summary judgment. Even drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of South Carolina, evidence showing that the initials “SC” could refer to the State of South Carolina does not create a genuine issue on whether the initials uniquely point to the State. On this basis, we affirm the Board's decision to grant summary judgment against South Carolina on its cancellation counterclaim.

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

Coots continue with their identity crisis...

Is that a banana tree ?***

Re: Is that a banana tree ?***