• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Colleges aren’t happy with Bud’s school spirit

September 24, 2009 by Billy Barnes (IPilogue Editor)

Billy Barnes is a JD candidate at the University of Toronto.

Budweiser has begun selling beer cans in the colours of local college football teams in some markets in the US. For example, in parts of Michigan they are selling a maize (pale yellow) and blue “fan can” that matches the colours of Michigan State University. Though many universities are fine with this—or at least willing to put up with it—the campaign has caught the ire of others, including Michigan State which has threatened legal action.

It probably won’t come to that because Budweiser’s policy is to pull the cans immediately if the university complains, but it does allow me to consider a few questions: (1) could the universities stop Budweiser from selling the cans, and (2) should they be able to? I apologize for asking questions I can’t definitively answer, but I encourage you add your own thoughts in the comments.

A university would have to prove two things: that they have a trademark and that trademark is infringed. A colour scheme is capable of functioning as a trademark. So if the university can establish that the colour scheme has acquired a secondary meaning as a source of goods, then they should be able to claim ownership rights over that scheme. The very premise of the campaign would make this seem likely: each colour scheme is available only in the vicinity of the school it is targeted at because that is where people will recognize it and buy it to support the local team. Then it is up to the universities to show infringement—that consumers are likely to be confused as to the source of the beer or the relationship between the schools and Budweiser. This question is undeniably fact-based, but it has been held that when a mark “was adopted with the intent of deriving benefit from the reputation of [the mark holder] that fact alone may be sufficient to justify the inference that there is confusing similarity.” All this is to say, the case will turn on the facts but a university would have a serious chance.

If you have read reports on this in the media or comments in blogs, you may find a lot of people siding with Budweiser. After all, they’re just encouraging school spirit, right? They’re not actually competing with the school. Intuitively, it would feel different if they were selling knockoff souvenirs or merchandise that cut into the market for items sold at the school gift shop. But there are, I believe, compelling reasons in favour of protecting the schools. When I read about this, I was immediately reminded of the Olympic marks because people buy products in school colours or with the Olympic mark to support a public institution. American universities, as with the Olympics, make a lot of money by licensing their marks to companies that want to profit from this. Budweiser, if they are infringing, would be deriving a benefit by misleading consumers and depriving universities of licensing fees. That wouldn’t be right. It’s all in how you phrase it.

Posted in Trademarks

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« No Liability for Hyperlinks, Online Free Speech Protected | Google and On Demand Books Bring the Public Domain to the Public »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

 

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Bratz, Ideas, Expressions, and The American Way
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Commercialization (47)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (651)
    • Copyright (309)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (61)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (18)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736