BJWilliams wrote:Can't win for losing sometimes...Liberty copyrights LU and makes an effort to protect itself, its "no wonder nobody likes us" and "Man this is another horrible PR move". If somebody else copyrighted the LU and the university ended up in some protracted arbitration process, then the comments probably are about why the university did not make a proactive effort to protect part of its brand or some other such nonsense...and it STILL would be about "no wonder nobody likes us". Makes me shake my head the thought process of people around here sometimes.
If you actually had clarity of thought about the process that would help. Have you even looked at the article regarding Lipscomb? The USC v USC decision? If not, it would help. If so, you might want to reread them and discuss where the issue was.
This is the money quote from Lipscomb
"“In subsequent weeks, outside legal counsel was retained, and several attempts were made at reasonable negotiation. In the end, there were two options: one, initiate federal court litigation to adjudicate the rights to “LU” or, two, discontinue its use. The cost and distraction to take the issue to court would be substantial and the outcome could still be negative. Therefore, the decision was made to immediately transition away from the use of “LU” campus wide.”
From the USC case
Although South Carolina will no longer be able to use an “SC” logo, it may continue to use “USC” logos in accordance with its concurrent use agreement with Southern California that allows both schools to use “USC” logos in their respective geographical territories. Interestingly, “SC” logos are known to be used by sixteen other colleges in the United States, but the other schools were found to have an insignificant effect on the strength of Southern California’s registered mark.
Discuss amongst yourself the similarity and difference.