Tuesday, April 13, 2010
U.S.C. Trojans Defeat Univ. of South Carolina
THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Neil C. Jones, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP, of Greenville, South Carolina, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Ashley B. Summer.
Scott A. Edelman, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Los Angeles, California, argued for appellee. Of counsel on the brief was Michael S. Adler, Tantalo & Adler LLP, of Beverly Hills, California.
In a case followed by National Academy of American Scholars, The University of Southern California recently emerged victorious in a contested battle with the University of South Carolina.
At issue was the interlocking “SC” logo, used by both schools. Both the The University of Southern California and the University of South Carolina have claimed the SC logo as their own. The two schools have engaged in a bitter battle over the logo since 2002, when South Carolina attempted to federally register their logo.
Southern California already had a registered trademark on the interlocking letters, and asserted that the logos were too similar. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) agreed, and South Carolina made a counterclaim, which it also lost.
In fact, the counter-claim filed by the University of South Carolina sought to cancel the trademark registration of The University of Southern California. It is amazing that the University of South Carolina can consciously raise student tuition rates, and wrangle with the fact that "the percentage of funding cuts for higher education in South Carolina is the highest in the nation", yet still afford to pay attorneys to cancel a legitimate and upstanding trademark application out of spite and anger.
Sports fans certainly recognize that The University of Southern California markets SC apparel in a wider market following than the University of South Carolina. The legit USC has more national championships, and has won earned the respect of the national educational community with its committment to excellence.
University of South Carolina claims to have a right to use the SC logo. What about the NAAS logo? Why does The University of South Carolina permit a rogue, and unethical professor, Don Jordan, to infringe upon the NAAS label? Where are these expensive University of South Carolina attorneys when they need to drill some common sense into the fat head of Don Jordan?
Like David Steadman has a made fool out of the states of Utah and Idaho, Don Jordan is embarrassing the University of South Carolina and he is evidence that all of the marketing statements, fancy literature, and feel-good claims made about University of South Carolina by University of South Carolina are simply hot-air. The reality is Don Jordan.
Don Jordan is a serial trademark infringer, and property molester. He is arrogant and fashions himself as above the law. He sets an example to University of South Carolina students that violations of federal laws are fine.
Some persons believe that Don Jordan is the type of person that motivates and fuels the Tim McVeighs, Virginia Virginia Tech massacre suspect Seung-hui Cho, anti-establishment persons, etc.
My hunch is that The University of South Carolina was cursed from the beginning. Like Don Jordan, they were on the wrong side of the law. Clean up your own house, before seeking to clean the house of others. Start with Don Jordan!