[BostonCard]

In the category of news you just can’t make up…

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ohio-st...1655926237

FFS.

BC

[BostonCard]

In the category of news you just can’t make up…

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ohio-st...1655926237

FFS.

BC

[Phogge]

OK, so when Stanford comes roaring out of the Coliseum tunnel the announcers can't say, "Here comes the Cardinal."

[Phogge]

OK, so when Stanford comes roaring out of the Coliseum tunnel the announcers can't say, "Here comes the Cardinal."

[82lsju]

OK, so when Stanford comes roaring out of the Coliseum tunnel the announcers can't say, "Here comes the Cardinal."

That simple article has become part of Ohio State's culture, and the university has successfully registered a trademark for "THE." The trademark, which was initially applied for in August, 2019, took three years to get approved and will apply to any application on clothing and apparel.
...
Apparel brand Marc Jacobs had also applied for a trademark for the word, so it's possible, according to Gerben, that Ohio State was taking a defensive position by also applying for the trademark. If Marc Jacobs were to have gotten the trademark, they would have had the authority to ask Ohio State to stop using it on their apparel.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...t-word-the

[82lsju]

OK, so when Stanford comes roaring out of the Coliseum tunnel the announcers can't say, "Here comes the Cardinal."

That simple article has become part of Ohio State's culture, and the university has successfully registered a trademark for "THE." The trademark, which was initially applied for in August, 2019, took three years to get approved and will apply to any application on clothing and apparel.
...
Apparel brand Marc Jacobs had also applied for a trademark for the word, so it's possible, according to Gerben, that Ohio State was taking a defensive position by also applying for the trademark. If Marc Jacobs were to have gotten the trademark, they would have had the authority to ask Ohio State to stop using it on their apparel.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...t-word-the

[CowboyIndian]

This has THE scent of THE Shield and "THE BIG GAME". So sue me, OSU! Oh...and F### Woody Hayes, too!

[CowboyIndian]

This has THE scent of THE Shield and "THE BIG GAME". So sue me, OSU! Oh...and F### Woody Hayes, too!

[82 Card]

I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of moron approved issuance of the trademark. Pretty sure this will be tied up in court for a long time. On a list of world universities, I found 200 with names that start with "The." I imagine alumni of The University of Alabama or some elite prep school would love to go after The Ohio State University just for giggles. 

"The" has also been used on merch for many other industries for many years. Many bands use "The" (ex: The Band, The Last Waltz, The Who, The Chicks). Lots of TV shows do it. I'm having a hard time thinking of a school newspaper that doesn't start with "The." Pretty sure most of these enterprises sell apparel with their name.

[82 Card]

I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of moron approved issuance of the trademark. Pretty sure this will be tied up in court for a long time. On a list of world universities, I found 200 with names that start with "The." I imagine alumni of The University of Alabama or some elite prep school would love to go after The Ohio State University just for giggles. 

"The" has also been used on merch for many other industries for many years. Many bands use "The" (ex: The Band, The Last Waltz, The Who, The Chicks). Lots of TV shows do it. I'm having a hard time thinking of a school newspaper that doesn't start with "The." Pretty sure most of these enterprises sell apparel with their name.

[TrumpCard]

The USPTO has been on a roll with approval of marks that seem questionable under the rules I studied in law school. For example, in connection with a generic description of a service, I recently heard of approval of a service mark for “we are ….”  Can you imagine thinking that “we are SAT tutors” or “we are tax accounting specialists” or what have you would prevent consumer confusion?

[TrumpCard]

The USPTO has been on a roll with approval of marks that seem questionable under the rules I studied in law school. For example, in connection with a generic description of a service, I recently heard of approval of a service mark for “we are ….”  Can you imagine thinking that “we are SAT tutors” or “we are tax accounting specialists” or what have you would prevent consumer confusion?

[ca245]

The OSU registration is for "THE" used alone, not in combination with other words, as in "The One and Only Stanford Marching Band."
THE trademark
As others have noted, "The ...(other words).." has been used and trademarked previously. In fact, OSU is not the only educational institute with a "The" obsession. I used to do business with The Scripps Research Institute and they insisted that I use the acronym TSRI on their contracts. Sure enough, they have trademarked "The Scripps Research Institute."
Scripps trademark
Per the Wall St Journal, Marc Jacobs had an earlier application for "THE" that blocked OSU's application and the two entered into a settlement that let OSU's application go forward. I was curious about how the settlement was structured, as they are usually done along business lines, as in: "You get to use the mark for cars and I get to use it for furniture." But here both presumably were interested in apparel. A clue can be found in the Goods and Services description of the OSU mark: "Clothing, namely, t-shirts, baseball caps and hats; all of the foregoing being promoted, distributed, and sold through channels customary to the field of sports and collegiate athletics." I assume Marc Jacobs gets the designer clothing side of the business. So if you sell a T-shirt with "THE" as the only wording, you could be sued by OSU or Marc Jacobs, depending on which end of the market you are trading in.

[ca245]

The OSU registration is for "THE" used alone, not in combination with other words, as in "The One and Only Stanford Marching Band."
THE trademark
As others have noted, "The ...(other words).." has been used and trademarked previously. In fact, OSU is not the only educational institute with a "The" obsession. I used to do business with The Scripps Research Institute and they insisted that I use the acronym TSRI on their contracts. Sure enough, they have trademarked "The Scripps Research Institute."
Scripps trademark
Per the Wall St Journal, Marc Jacobs had an earlier application for "THE" that blocked OSU's application and the two entered into a settlement that let OSU's application go forward. I was curious about how the settlement was structured, as they are usually done along business lines, as in: "You get to use the mark for cars and I get to use it for furniture." But here both presumably were interested in apparel. A clue can be found in the Goods and Services description of the OSU mark: "Clothing, namely, t-shirts, baseball caps and hats; all of the foregoing being promoted, distributed, and sold through channels customary to the field of sports and collegiate athletics." I assume Marc Jacobs gets the designer clothing side of the business. So if you sell a T-shirt with "THE" as the only wording, you could be sued by OSU or Marc Jacobs, depending on which end of the market you are trading in.

[CowboyIndian]

I just Zoomed with an old friend who had had a biz meeting in Columbus. He was wearing a ball cap with "THE" only....in large capital letters. Guess where he got it.

[CowboyIndian]

I just Zoomed with an old friend who had had a biz meeting in Columbus. He was wearing a ball cap with "THE" only....in large capital letters. Guess where he got it.

[ca245]

I can’t fault the Patent & Trademark office for allowing the “THE” mark. It recently lost a series of cases where it had initially denied registration of a mark but was reversed by the courts on First Amendment grounds, most famously at the Supreme Court over the mark “The Slants” (application first rejected as derogatory).
So its attitude now seems to be very lenient about allowing marks. If business competitors don’t like it, let them and the registrant fight it out in court but leave the PTO out of it.

PS: I would like to see a bunch of OSU alums strutting around in France with “THE” T-shirts, leaving the natives puzzling over why these Yanks are touting a herbal beverage.

[ca245]

I can’t fault the Patent & Trademark office for allowing the “THE” mark. It recently lost a series of cases where it had initially denied registration of a mark but was reversed by the courts on First Amendment grounds, most famously at the Supreme Court over the mark “The Slants” (application first rejected as derogatory).
So its attitude now seems to be very lenient about allowing marks. If business competitors don’t like it, let them and the registrant fight it out in court but leave the PTO out of it.

PS: I would like to see a bunch of OSU alums strutting around in France with “THE” T-shirts, leaving the natives puzzling over why these Yanks are touting a herbal beverage.

[TrumpCard]

ca245, that leniency would make sense, except then why bother having a bunch of govt employees do nothing but review trademark applications all day. Just stamp them and let the market and courts decide.

[TrumpCard]

ca245, that leniency would make sense, except then why bother having a bunch of govt employees do nothing but review trademark applications all day. Just stamp them and let the market and courts decide.

[ca245]

ca245, that leniency would make sense, except then why bother having a bunch of govt employees do nothing but review trademark applications all day. Just stamp them and let the market and courts decide.

First Amendment issues aside, some level of review is still needed. For example, you couldn't have two "FORD" marks for autos or marks likely to cause confusion with consumers, such as "iMak"for computers. Someone has to check. To automatically approve all applications and let it be decided in the courts would be expensive and time-consuming, a waste of judicial resources. Better to have most such applications nipped in the bud, imperfect as the PTO examination process is.
And not all competitors have the resources for expensive litigation. The SF Chronicle had a couple of articles on a bakery that trademarked "MOCHI MUFFIN," a muffin like confection made with mochi dough instead of muffin dough that is popular in the Bay Area. This mark probably should not have been allowed, as being merely descriptive of the goods, as in "RUBBER BALL." Having obtained the mark, the bakery proceeded to bludgeon its competitors -- mostly mom and pop bakeries -- with threats of lawsuits. Unable to afford expensive litigation, the competitors mostly caved.

[ca245]

ca245, that leniency would make sense, except then why bother having a bunch of govt employees do nothing but review trademark applications all day. Just stamp them and let the market and courts decide.

First Amendment issues aside, some level of review is still needed. For example, you couldn't have two "FORD" marks for autos or marks likely to cause confusion with consumers, such as "iMak"for computers. Someone has to check. To automatically approve all applications and let it be decided in the courts would be expensive and time-consuming, a waste of judicial resources. Better to have most such applications nipped in the bud, imperfect as the PTO examination process is.
And not all competitors have the resources for expensive litigation. The SF Chronicle had a couple of articles on a bakery that trademarked "MOCHI MUFFIN," a muffin like confection made with mochi dough instead of muffin dough that is popular in the Bay Area. This mark probably should not have been allowed, as being merely descriptive of the goods, as in "RUBBER BALL." Having obtained the mark, the bakery proceeded to bludgeon its competitors -- mostly mom and pop bakeries -- with threats of lawsuits. Unable to afford expensive litigation, the competitors mostly caved.

[BostonCard]

It is an interesting debate, and very different from the USSC rulings on whether trademark refusals can violate the first amendment.  Refusing to grant a mark because it was potentially confusing, merely descriptive or primarily geographic has always been a valid reason for refusal.

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/additio...fusal-mark

BC

[BostonCard]

It is an interesting debate, and very different from the USSC rulings on whether trademark refusals can violate the first amendment.  Refusing to grant a mark because it was potentially confusing, merely descriptive or primarily geographic has always been a valid reason for refusal.

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/additio...fusal-mark

BC

[82 Card]

Granting a trademark prevents others from using it. Understanding how denial of right to shut everyone else up can be a free speech violation escapes me.

[82 Card]

Granting a trademark prevents others from using it. Understanding how denial of right to shut everyone else up can be a free speech violation escapes me.