Please tell me Aggy is not this stupid...

[GH2001]

If TAMU cannot establish ownership of any of the phrases/colors/etc on the billboard, they lose.

There must be infringement (or, at the very least, the possibility of confusion).  Those are issues for a judge to decide in the absence of clear ownership of "Aggie Nation", "Whoop!" (whatever the fuck that is), or some other aspect of the content of the billboard.

Maroon....You gotta be kiddin. They can trademark Maroon?

“To protect any trademark we’ll take it down, and if they resolve it, we’re happy to put it back up,” said Jim Cullinan, head of communications for Clear Channel.

Texas A&M is hosting the University of Florida on Saturday in the Aggies’ first SEC football game. The billboard is “not in line with how we have handled our transition to the SEC,” said Jason Cook, Texas A&M’s vice president for marketing and communications.

Cullinan said a Houston media company representing a group called Aggie Nation bought the billboard. But Cook said the university has a “strong suspicion” that it was not placed there by anyone affiliated with Texas A&M or its supporters.

“Texas A&M fans do not refer to themselves as the Aggie Nation … We refer to ourselves either as the Aggie Network or the Twelfth Man,” Cook said.

The billboard’s use of the Texas A&M’s maroon color and the term Aggies violated the university’s trademark, the cease-and-desist letter alleged

[wesfau2]

The color of the board.

Maybe...maybe not.  The color would have to be a spot on match to be protectable.  I can't decide whether it is.  I guess if CC used "TAMU Maroon" to paint the board, then they knew they had to take it down.  My guess is that the color is some other shade.

It would be hard for the lessee to win.  To prove he was not referring to TAMU.

Maybe...maybe not.  IP law is very technical.

[GH2001]

The color of the board.

It would be hard for the lessee to win.  To prove he was not referring to TAMU.

This is assuming BTW that either of those two phrases were indeed trademarked.

I agree that they are saying Maroon use was a main reason, but can someone seriously trademark a somewhat commonplace color??

[GH2001]

Maybe...maybe not.  The color would have to be a spot on match to be protectable.  I can't decide whether it is.  I guess if CC used "TAMU Maroon" to paint the board, then they knew they had to take it down.  My guess is that the color is some other shade.

Maybe...maybe not.  IP law is very technical.

So they'll change Aggie to Aggee or Aggey or Aggy and the color to beige or light red. Problem solved. Now what TAMU?

[Saniflush]

I frown on your shenanigans

ZIPS MUTHAFUCKER!

[Godfather]

The only reason I know of what I speak is because of the shit with our store.

Being an off shade doesn't matter, it is the use of the color with the terms. 

I'll give an example, we had TigersX stuff on the shop, had nothing to do with Auburn University.  However the fact that this is clearly a dedicated Auburn site, and we were selling the merchandise that was orange and blue, with the term tigers on it, they could shut us down.

[Godfather]

Maybe...maybe not.  IP law is very technical.

I was referring to the billboard lessee.

[wesfau2]

I was referring to the billboard lessee.

Me, too.

The only reason I know of what I speak is because of the shit with our store.

Being an off shade doesn't matter, it is the use of the color with the terms. 

I'll give an example, we had TigersX stuff on the shop, had nothing to do with Auburn University.  However the fact that this is clearly a dedicated Auburn site, and we were selling the merchandise that was orange and blue, with the term tigers on it, they could shut us down.

Understand that the school can bully.  In the case of TigersX, it was a two-party fight.  Here, though, there is a third, supposedly innocent, party.  TAMU can threaten, but CC has to consider the liability it might owe to the lessee if CC pulls down what is, ultimately legit, billboard.

[Godfather]

Me, too.

Where does IP come into play with a billboard?

[wesfau2]

Where does IP come into play with a billboard?

IP (intellectual property) is an umbrella term encompassing trademarks, copyrights and patents.

[Godfather]

Understand that the school can bully.  In the case of TigersX, it was a two-party fight.  Here, though, there is a third, supposedly innocent, party.  TAMU can threaten, but CC has to consider the liability it might owe to the lessee if CC pulls down what is, ultimately legit, billboard.

Actually there was a third party involved in our case as well. The shirt company.  However, they would not be held liable because if you read their agreement anything that is trademarked can not be produced.  You must check a box saying you have read and agree to this.

Would this also not be the case for ClearChannel?

Bottom line is could I have sued...yes
Could I have won...debatable
Would I spend the money to do so...hell no you fuckers don't buy enough shirts.

Bottom line I think I would have had a stronger case to fight back then these billboard folks do.

[GH2001]

Is this kind of like one of Chadskins' twitter battles?

[Godfather]

IP (intellectual property) is an umbrella term encompassing trademarks, copyrights and patents.

Sorry we had jumped around and were talking about URL domain as well so I was thinking IP address...youse done got me confoosed with your lawyerin jargon.

[wesfau2]

Actually there was a third party involved in our case as well. The shirt company.  However, they would not be held liable because if you read their agreement anything that is trademarked can not be produced.  You must check a box saying you have read and agree to this.

Would this also not be the case for ClearChannel?

Probably....I addressed that previously.  However, in the case of a "gray area" (where the trademark is not explicit and requires a court to rule as to ownership), CC is operating at its own peril to cave to TAMU's demand.

Bottom line is could I have sued...yes
Could I have won...debatable
Would I spend the money to do so...hell no you fuckers don't buy enough shirts.

Bottom line I think I would have had a stronger case to fight back then these billboard folks do.

Maybe....maybe not.  Lawsuits are funny animals.

[Godfather]

Maybe....maybe not.  Lawsuits are funny animals.

Like a Liger?

[wesfau2]

Like a Liger?

Nothing funny about that sumbitch.

Now balloons that blow up into funny shapes...like round...H.I.larious.

[Godfather]

Jaguar Shark?

[Vandy Vol]

Maroon....You gotta be kiddin. They can trademark Maroon?

No, it's the combination of the color maroon along with the term Aggies.  If they were just to use the color maroon on a billboard, there would be no infringement; you can't (in general) trademark a color by itself.  There usually has to be some other significance to the color, or a specific color scheme, etc.  But when you combine enough elements together so that the viewer of the billboard would reasonably assume it is endorsed by Texas A&M, the overall use of those elements causes consumer confusion and is therefore infringement.

Also, you don't have to register a trademark in order to have it protected.  If you can show that you've used the trademark in commerce, it's yours.  You may be limited geographically in regard to where you can use the trademark if you don't have it nationally registered, depending upon whether anyone has used the trademark in certain regions prior to you.

[Godfather]

No, it's the combination of the color maroon along with the term Aggies.  If they were just to use the color maroon on a billboard, there would be no infringement; you can't (in general) trademark a color by itself.  There usually has to be some other significance to the color, or a specific color scheme, etc.  But when you combine enough elements together so that the viewer of the billboard would reasonably assume it is endorsed by Texas A&M, the overall use of those elements causes consumer confusion and is therefore infringement.

I think I said that about seven posts ago and I didn't go to a fancy lawyerin school.

The only reason I know of what I speak is because of the shit with our store.

Being an off shade doesn't matter, it is the use of the color with the terms. 

I'll give an example, we had TigersX stuff on the shop, had nothing to do with Auburn University.  However the fact that this is clearly a dedicated Auburn site, and we were selling the merchandise that was orange and blue, with the term tigers on it, they could shut us down.

[GH2001]

No, it's the combination of the color maroon along with the term Aggies.  If they were just to use the color maroon on a billboard, there would be no infringement; you can't (in general) trademark a color by itself.  There usually has to be some other significance to the color, or a specific color scheme, etc.  But when you combine enough elements together so that the viewer of the billboard would reasonably assume it is endorsed by Texas A&M, the overall use of those elements causes consumer confusion and is therefore infringement.

Also, you don't have to register a trademark in order to have it protected.  If you can show that you've used the trademark in commerce, it's yours.  You may be limited geographically in regard to where you can use the trademark if you don't have it nationally registered, depending upon whether anyone has used the trademark in certain regions prior to you.

Like I said, I suspect they will change some letters and colors around and repost it at some point.