law_bee
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 6,391
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/0504/28uganame.html
UGA may have lost its name
Foundation filed for trademark after the university let it lapse
By ALAN JUDD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/27/04
After 219 years, the University of Georgia could become the school with no name.
UGA's already messy divorce from its fund-raising organization took a nasty, unexpected twist Thursday: It turns out that the university doesn't hold the trademark to its own name. Instead, in papers filed last year, the University of Georgia Foundation has declared itself the owner of all things labeled "University of Georgia."
EMAIL THIS
PRINT THIS
MOST POPULAR
In doing so, the nonprofit foundation asserted control over every commercial use of the university's moniker, from UGA-embossed coffee mugs to boxer shorts — to "education services, namely providing instruction at the college level," according to its trademark papers.
It's not clear how the trademark filing will affect a yearlong dispute over attempts by some foundation trustees to oust UGA President Michael Adams. But the name issue puts a new spin on the state Board of Regents' decision Tuesday to end UGA's 67-year relationship with the foundation.
On Wednesday, regents' leaders said that if the foundation remained in business, it could no longer operate with the university's imprimatur. State officials described UGA's name as the regents' "intellectual property."
But, at least in theory, the foundation could try to force the University of Georgia, founded in 1785, to stop calling itself the University of Georgia.
Registration expired in 1997
UGA officials declined to comment on the name question, as did Joel Wooten, the regents' vice chairman and their designated spokesman on the foundation dispute.
Lawyers at the University System of Georgia are researching the trademark question but had reached no conclusion by late Thursday, said Arlethia Perry Johnson, a system spokeswoman.
"This is illustrative of the many types of issues that will have to be resolved in the coming weeks," she said.
Foundation trustees did not discuss the trademark issue publicly Thursday during their annual meeting on Sea Island. Whether the foundation would use the issue as leverage to retain its UGA affiliation remained uncertain.
Attorneys in the foundation's law firm, Atlanta-based King & Spalding, told trustees they could continue operating under the UGA name.
One of the lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell, suggested that the foundation's literature make explicit that, although the group was chartered to support UGA, it is not affiliated with the regents.
"It might help us if we had that on there," Bell said, drawing chuckles from trustees.
The regents, who run Georgia's 34 public colleges and universities, owned UGA's trademark for years. But the registration expired in 1997, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For reasons officials could not explain Thursday, no one on the regents' staff renewed the trademark.
The regents still own trademarks for their other schools, a federal database indicates. Several people — mostly T-shirt entrepreneurs — have applied for trademarks to the "UGA" initials, although no such trademark is currently in force. The name "Bulldogs" belongs to the UGA Athletics Association.
King & Spalding filed papers in May 2003 to claim the University of Georgia's trademark for the foundation, records show. It was not clear whether lawyers asked the regents to refile trademark documents, and the law firm declined to comment.
The foundation's trademark application is awaiting final approval, which often takes years. No opponents have filed objections.
Revenue from the sale of trademarked goods is split among the foundation and UGA's alumni and athletics associations. Under the arrangement, the foundation collects about $250,000 a year.
Both the regents and the foundation could make legitimate claims to UGA's name, six Atlanta lawyers who handle trademark cases said Thursday. All declined to speak on the record, saying they have clients, law partners or close friends on one side — or, in some cases, on both sides — of the dispute.
But lawyers in Atlanta and outside the state said UGA's rights could supersede the foundation's, simply because it has used the name for a longer time, without interruption.
'It gets messy sometimes'
Despite the regents' allowing the trademark to lapse, "the university never abandoned its rights," said Tom Brooke, an intellectual-property lawyer in Washington. "Trademark rights are not dependent on registration."
By the same token, Brooke said, the regents would have a hard time barring the foundation from promoting itself as a UGA organization. "It's hard to say, 'Even though we didn't say anything for 60 years, this really bothers us,' " Brooke said.
Lawyers interviewed Thursday said they knew of no comparable trademark disputes. They agreed that if either side pushes the issue, it almost certainly would end up before a judge. But because the relationship was so casual for so long before it turned sour, the outcome is uncertain.
"My guess is this all will be sorted out by the courts," Brooke said. "It gets messy sometimes because people don't put things in writing."
Staff writer Kelly Simmons contributed to this report from Sea Island.
UGA may have lost its name
Foundation filed for trademark after the university let it lapse
By ALAN JUDD
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/27/04
After 219 years, the University of Georgia could become the school with no name.
UGA's already messy divorce from its fund-raising organization took a nasty, unexpected twist Thursday: It turns out that the university doesn't hold the trademark to its own name. Instead, in papers filed last year, the University of Georgia Foundation has declared itself the owner of all things labeled "University of Georgia."
EMAIL THIS
PRINT THIS
MOST POPULAR
In doing so, the nonprofit foundation asserted control over every commercial use of the university's moniker, from UGA-embossed coffee mugs to boxer shorts — to "education services, namely providing instruction at the college level," according to its trademark papers.
It's not clear how the trademark filing will affect a yearlong dispute over attempts by some foundation trustees to oust UGA President Michael Adams. But the name issue puts a new spin on the state Board of Regents' decision Tuesday to end UGA's 67-year relationship with the foundation.
On Wednesday, regents' leaders said that if the foundation remained in business, it could no longer operate with the university's imprimatur. State officials described UGA's name as the regents' "intellectual property."
But, at least in theory, the foundation could try to force the University of Georgia, founded in 1785, to stop calling itself the University of Georgia.
Registration expired in 1997
UGA officials declined to comment on the name question, as did Joel Wooten, the regents' vice chairman and their designated spokesman on the foundation dispute.
Lawyers at the University System of Georgia are researching the trademark question but had reached no conclusion by late Thursday, said Arlethia Perry Johnson, a system spokeswoman.
"This is illustrative of the many types of issues that will have to be resolved in the coming weeks," she said.
Foundation trustees did not discuss the trademark issue publicly Thursday during their annual meeting on Sea Island. Whether the foundation would use the issue as leverage to retain its UGA affiliation remained uncertain.
Attorneys in the foundation's law firm, Atlanta-based King & Spalding, told trustees they could continue operating under the UGA name.
One of the lawyers, former U.S. Attorney General Griffin Bell, suggested that the foundation's literature make explicit that, although the group was chartered to support UGA, it is not affiliated with the regents.
"It might help us if we had that on there," Bell said, drawing chuckles from trustees.
The regents, who run Georgia's 34 public colleges and universities, owned UGA's trademark for years. But the registration expired in 1997, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. For reasons officials could not explain Thursday, no one on the regents' staff renewed the trademark.
The regents still own trademarks for their other schools, a federal database indicates. Several people — mostly T-shirt entrepreneurs — have applied for trademarks to the "UGA" initials, although no such trademark is currently in force. The name "Bulldogs" belongs to the UGA Athletics Association.
King & Spalding filed papers in May 2003 to claim the University of Georgia's trademark for the foundation, records show. It was not clear whether lawyers asked the regents to refile trademark documents, and the law firm declined to comment.
The foundation's trademark application is awaiting final approval, which often takes years. No opponents have filed objections.
Revenue from the sale of trademarked goods is split among the foundation and UGA's alumni and athletics associations. Under the arrangement, the foundation collects about $250,000 a year.
Both the regents and the foundation could make legitimate claims to UGA's name, six Atlanta lawyers who handle trademark cases said Thursday. All declined to speak on the record, saying they have clients, law partners or close friends on one side — or, in some cases, on both sides — of the dispute.
But lawyers in Atlanta and outside the state said UGA's rights could supersede the foundation's, simply because it has used the name for a longer time, without interruption.
'It gets messy sometimes'
Despite the regents' allowing the trademark to lapse, "the university never abandoned its rights," said Tom Brooke, an intellectual-property lawyer in Washington. "Trademark rights are not dependent on registration."
By the same token, Brooke said, the regents would have a hard time barring the foundation from promoting itself as a UGA organization. "It's hard to say, 'Even though we didn't say anything for 60 years, this really bothers us,' " Brooke said.
Lawyers interviewed Thursday said they knew of no comparable trademark disputes. They agreed that if either side pushes the issue, it almost certainly would end up before a judge. But because the relationship was so casual for so long before it turned sour, the outcome is uncertain.
"My guess is this all will be sorted out by the courts," Brooke said. "It gets messy sometimes because people don't put things in writing."
Staff writer Kelly Simmons contributed to this report from Sea Island.
