From Saturday's News-Gazette:
The creator of the Chief Illiniwek logo has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the University of Illinois in an attempt to obtain control of the image.
The university, however, plans to keep the trademark. In fact, university officials are talking with a licensing company about marketing the Chief logo as part of a program to sell vintage-logo collegiate clothing and merchandise online.
"The university has every intention of maintaining ownership of the trademarked logo and related word marks," said university spokeswoman Robin Kaler.
The most interesting part of this article:
But university officials and lawyers have been working with Collegiate Licensing Company to add the Chief logo to the company's College Vault program. College Vault licenses vintage collegiate logos, emblems and other images.
"We have not made final decisions on specific products or volume going forward, but we will continue to offer merchandise in select apparel, non-apparel and headwear categories," Kaler said.
If the university does not use the Chief logo, it could fall into public domain. As Auler summarized U.S. trademark laws: "You use it or you lose it."
By licensing the logo to College Vault, the UI's trademark rights would be protected.
Have at it. And for the love of God, please try to keep the insults to a minimum.
I read that article when was first printed, and I still have the same reaction...assuming I understand the gist of it.
The creator wants the logo back, ostensibly so that it can be marketed and available for purchase by the chief-supporting public.
The logo is property of the university now, free and clear, since they paid for it; therefore, the university will not give up ultimate control of it.
In order for the logo not to end up in the public domain, it must be "used;" therefore, they will likely license the logo to a vintage college clothing company, thereby maintaining ultimate control of the logo.
The vintage clothing company will then sell clothing and other items with the logo, available for purchase by the chief supporting public.
Sounds to me like, minus the Chief himself, it's a win-win-win situation: the UI gets to claim "multicultural" status (or whatever it is the school is after) by not selling Chief clothing themselves, the Chief-supporting public still has new Chief clothing available for purchase, and the vintage clothing company gets to make a buck.
What am I missing?
There is no such thing these days (and by "these days", I mean in the last 20-30 years) as a binding oral agreement. If it was this important to him, you'd think he would have documented it back then or at any point in the last 27 years, especially since it's not like we didn't see this as an eventuality at some point. He could have gotten the docuentation done at the first rumblings of the anti-chief movement back in 1989 when Charlene Teeters was protesting, or in 1994 when the documentary "In Whose Honor?" was released when the anti-chief sentiment really started growing. The BOT back then probably would have gone along with it. Now it's too late, and he's kicking himself over a missed opportunity. I would be too.
Auler has a very interesting interpretation of copyright law, that's for sure, and it's a hell of a lot more complex than "Use it or lose it". From what I gather, it takes many years for something to fall into public domain, even from disuse. The only way I can see for it to fall into public domain and for UIUC to lose it's copyright is if they don't proactively go after unauthorized use, which won't happen. I expect this suit to get tossed about as quickly as the students who sued because taking away the chief was restricting their right to free speech.
This lawsuit has no merit. Its purely a publicity stunt for Auler. After twice being disciplined for improper dealings with client's fees, this is the best he can do to get back in good graces with the Loren Tate/Jim Turpin generation.
http://www.iardc.org/lawyersearch.asp
I see the pretend patent and teademark lawyers are bloggng today.
I see that the English majors are also "bloggng" today.
Well Pro 1st Amendment at 9:55 AM, one thing you're missing is that the company the U. of I. is licensing the logo to is connected to the NCAA!! So, what kind of deal is this? The NCAA says the Chief image is so hostile and degrading the University can't use it, but the University can license it to the NCAA so it can print t shirts and sell them? This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. (And, I'm not a chief supporter. It was time to remove the chief.)
Has the NCAA actually said it's okay with that deal, though? Surely most teams' vintage wear is of never-objected-to mascots, and previous versions of existing mascots.
To me this entire "vintage athletic wear" licensing deal smacks of an end run around the "no more Chief wear" decision. I can see the reasoning, that supposedly the NCAA only bans use of the Chief as an official symbol of the University (which it hasn't been for quite some time) or the DIA (which it hasn't been since February). Making this "historical" use, they think will get around that, since it's technically not a current symbol, or some such thing. Personally I think that violates the spirit of the restrictions, and I'm curious if it really fulfills the letter of the restrictions or not. Clearly, I'm not in favor, but hey, these things aren't up to me.
I wonder if the U will try to have pre-1980 old Chief stuff sold in the same manner.
I think the lawsuit mentioned in this article will not succeed. If the University gave up the trademark, wouldn't it go into the public domain, anyway? Not magically back to the creator of the original art?
Assuming (for the sake of argument only) that U did need to license some merch to retain the rights to the logo, if the U wanted to satisfy the spirit of "retiring the Chief" and not making money off the image, it would be trivial for it to license only some piece of obscure merchandise that most people would have no real use for, or only need one, as a ceremonial thing. Say, a simple framed drawing, or maybe a hat that comes only in newborn baby size. Selling all-sizes shirts, tees, and hats is just attempting to make more money off the Chief logo as they always did, no changes.
But I too have heard arguments that all that is needed to retain logo rights is to go after every violation. Any actual lawyers want to comment?
1980 isn't exactly what comes to mind as "vintage" anyway, particularly given that this 1980 logo is the one that was retired as current. If we were talking pre-circle-Chief designs I might actually feel differently. As it is, it just smacks of an end run around the rules, so it will be interesting to get the NCAA take on it.
Does anyone have a link or photo of the pre-1980 logo, or even older ones?
On January 7th, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Anonymous (not verified) said:
This lawsuit has no merit. Its purely a publicity stunt for Auler. After twice being disciplined for improper dealings with client's fees, this is the best he can do to get back in good graces with the Loren Tate/Jim Turpin generation.
Auler is pretty smart getting the guy that designed the logo to file the suit, Auler is not paying for the filing, The guy made a deal with the U of I and got $200.00 for the logo, that's water under the bridge. Auler is getting some free and much needed publicity in the NG to try and prop up his pitiful law practice. Auler is just one suspension away from being a pizza delivery boy. If you see a black Jaguar chasing an ambulance it's Bob Auler!!!
"IN WHOSE HONOR?" was released in November of 1996, and was broadcast nationally on PBS in July of 1997. Just thought I'd correct the first post.
As to the guy trying to get his design back ... selling the logo for $200 was a pretty dumb move. now he's got to live with his mistake.
I agree the guy "Gave" it away, nobody held a gun to his head. He and Auler should drop it.
I can't speak to Jack Davis' motivation, but I can tell you he's a very talented graphic designer and an extremely nice guy, and I have enjoyed working with him on many occasions. I have no opinion of Bob Auler.
For those interested, here is a link to the Chief logo trademark record. I found it interesting that the trademark wasn't applied for until 1998 and the first use claim is 1994, even though the logo was clearly in use in 1980 or shortly thereafter. "In Whose Honor?" was released in 1996? As I said...interesting.
...sorry about that. I forgot the link was part of a search, which expired. The trademark info appears below:
Goods and Services
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, aprons, adult and children's jackets, and vests, men's shirts, sport shirts, ties, night shirts, Ladies' tops, adult and children's jerseys, caps, sport caps, visor caps, ski caps, scarves, sweaters, ponchos, gloves, mittens, golf sweaters, ladies' and men's and children's t-shirts, baseball shirts, football shirts, football-style jerseys, ladies' and mens's shorts, socks, adult and children's warm-up suits, baby sleepers, baby shirts, western hats, tennis hats, wrist-bands and sweatbands. FIRST USE: 19941213. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19941213
IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Toy flying discs, basketballs, foam basketballs, footballs, foam footballs, stuffed toys animals, dolls, golf bags, golf head covers, golf balls, Christmas tree ornaments and Christmas stockings. FIRST USE: 19941213. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19941213
IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Educational services namely, conducting collegiate athletic exhibitions and games. FIRST USE: 19941213. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19941213
Mark Drawing Code
(2) DESIGN ONLY
Design Search Code
02.01.01 - Busts of men facing forward; Heads of men facing forward; Men - heads, portraiture, or busts facing forward; Portraiture of men facing forward
02.01.09 - Indians, American (men); Men, American Indians; Native Americans (men)
26.01.01 - Circles as carriers or as single line borders
Serial Number
75415168
Filing Date
January 8, 1998
Current Filing Basis
1A
Original Filing Basis
1A
Published for Opposition
December 22, 1998
Registration Number
2232024
Registration Date
March 16, 1999
Owner
(REGISTRANT) Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois CORPORATION ILLINOIS 352 Henry Administration Building 506 South Wright Street Urbana ILLINOIS 61801
Attorney of Record
E LEONARD RUBIN
Description of Mark
The mark consists of a stylized design of an American Indian man wearing a war bonnet. The lining shown in the drawing is a feature of the mark and is not intended to indicate color.
Type of Mark
TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register
PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text
SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator
LIVE
"I see that the English majors are also "bloggng" today." Not until now.
So wait - that seems to say the first use of THAT logo in commerce was in 1994? Is that a ever so slightly changed version of the 1980 mark, or did they not sell things (tshirts!) with the head until 1994? What would ACTUAL vintage (as in, discovered in yer mom's basement, not faked Abercrombie style stuff) U of I fan wear be like? I will say I've searched on eBay from time to time over the years and never found any really old stuff.
FWIW I went to the library this afternoon and did get some images, used in association with the Daily Illini, Illio, and that sort of thing (I'll try and scan them later). The uniforms were very plain and Chief-less, and I did not see much in the way of Illinois-themed clothing advertised at all - there were some hats that simply said "Illinois" in a generic font, for sale in both 1975 and 1980.
Now is the time for the old farts (or Jay Rosenstein maybe, if he did the research) to chime in - anyone have Chief shirts from before 1980? Anything with the side view head where the word "Illini" makes up the feathers coming off the back of the head?
Two interesting things:
(1) Here in the office we found some old DIA letterhead, undated but from the font it seems possibly 1960s. Definitely post 1963, it has a picture of the Assembly Hall on it, but the logo is the Block I (in orange and blue, it's fancy letterhead!), looking exactly like the Block I in current use.
(2) In the Welcome Students edition of the Daily Illini for 1980, there is an ad from the U of I Athletic Association selling Student Season Tickets (for a whopping $27) and while the ad uses the all lowercase "illini" with only the ll sticking up, that occurs lately with the official head logo, the only graphic is a drawing of the human Chief portrayer, basically a line-drawing tracing of a photo. An ad for the Illio in that same paper has the same style logo - it's a different drawing, but identical idea.
The editorial cartoons in the 1950 editions were quite a hoot. I'll definitely have to scan those in.
"Now is the time for the old farts (or Jay Rosenstein maybe, if he did the research) to chime in - anyone have Chief shirts from before 1980? Anything with the side view head where the word "Illini" makes up the feathers coming off the back of the head?"
Hey, does this make me an old fart? oh well, I am to my kids.
My research was pretty much confined to the Illio yearbooks. I don't recall seeing any alternative logos. If there had been a good photo of one, or someone wearing one, I probably would have used it in the film.
Then again, we old farts don't have good memories :)
Naw, I didn't know your age, so assumed you might be young, and had to only read about it. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it, anyway :)
Just for fun, here's the student tickets ad:
That's in a location that in the past few years would have had the circle logo, so it seems there wasn't a given set image.
An ad from a 1964 Daily Illini, recruiting students to write for the DI, features this Chief:
Granted, the DI is not technically the U, but from a whole variety of editorial cartoons and various commentary it seems use of Chief imagery generally was much less locked down.
funny that they used classic 70's typography to introduce the 80's.
anyhow, the lawsuit is simple: jack told uiuc they could have the logo for a nominal fee for as long as they wanted to use it. they no longer want to use it, so it reverts to him.
the suit has nothing to do with the legal concept of trademark abandonment and the trademark returning to the public domain.
i hate it when people open their yaps without first learning the facts of a matter.