THE Ohio State University Loses Its Trademark Application For 'THE'
from the THE-end dept
Over the past several weeks, we have been discussing a ridiculous trademark application filed by the Ohio State University for the word “the.” This entire episode has been a painful reminder of the fallout of the permission culture that has risen up out of strict IP enforcement and an overly-permissive USPTO. The idea that so common a word could be locked up by a public university for any market designation is, ahem, patently absurd. So absurd, in fact, that even OSU alumnus and college football commentator Kirk Herbstreit thought the whole thing was silly.
Still, given the Trademark Office’s history of approving far too many absurd trademarks, there were still some holding their breaths awaiting its decision on the application. For now, at least, the USPTO has rejected OSU’s application, though not quite as forcefully as it should have.
The USPTO’s document lists says it was refused because “the applied-for mark as used on the specimen of record is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of applicant’s clothing and, thus, does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from others.”
Basically this ruling says is that the word wanting to be trademarked cannot just be on the apparel, but has to be part of the marketing and must be on the tag or label as well. Ohio State is not using the trademark properly according to the USPTO, and could reapply if they do begin to label their clothing in a way that goes along with the trademark guidelines.
The decision itself leaves the door open for OSU when it probably shouldn’t. Essentially, the USPTO is noting the common word in question only in passing, instead focusing on how OSU is trying to use that word on apparel. Basically, the Trademark Office is saying that the manner in which OSU’s application says it’s going to use the word “the” isn’t distinctive or source-identifying, but says perhaps OSU could prove it actually is in the future.
In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use) and that shows proper trademark use for the identified goods in International Class 25. Examples of acceptable specimens that show non-ornamental use on clothing include hang tags and labels used inside a garment.
(2) Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators.
(3) Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.
(4) Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.
(5) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.
It’s unclear how much of this is pure boilerplate as opposed to specific guidance by the USPTO for this specific application. I would hope it’s the former, because I can’t begin to imagine how OSU is going to overcome the refusal on any of those counts, given that we’re talking about the god damned word “the.” The only reason for any of this nonsense is that alumni football players have tended to go on NFL broadcasts and introduce themselves with an emphasis on the word “the.” That’s literally it. How such practice could make the word “the” source identifying is pure mystery.
Given the derision and blowback, one would hope the Ohio State University would now just go away and stop all of this.
Filed Under: colleges, the, trademark
Companies: ohio state
Comments on “THE Ohio State University Loses Its Trademark Application For 'THE'”
Well Ohio state, perhaps THEE has misspelled the word you could trademark.
All I can say is LOL™
That sound you hear is Tero Pulkinnen losing his mind.
I wish someone rich would start a company selling clothes and sport gear under the brand "University".
Some people know no shame. I don’t know about OSU (or should that be TOSU? :D) but we’ve had examples of people doubling or tripling down at times.
We had to hold our breath on the USPTO’s decision, and we still have to hold our breath on OSU’s next move.
TOSU is similar to TOFU.
Just as tasteless, only stinkyer.
That explains all the breath holding.
Is this indicative of the quality of education you get at the Ohio State?
No, not really. Not yet, anyway, as the businesstards in charge of our public academic institutions have not pushed all the way there yet. It’s actually a pretty good school.
I guess too bad OSU isn’t a clothing manufacturer?
Wow. Three spammers in one comment section, one right after the other. One even tries to reference the article, clumsily. Maybe we should have it so that comments that are purely spam like this should actually be removed rather than merely hidden, or at least marked differently from other hidden comments. It’s one thing to be offensive, fractally wrong, a troll, or bring up something dumb or irrelevant; but spam like this does absolutely no good to the conversation at all by any stretch.
I like to show hidden comments to see why they were flagged and because sometimes responding to trolls can be fun. Spam is just a waste of time. Plus, removing them rather than just hiding them would deprive spammers of the “SEO juice” they desperately crave, and could discourage them at least somewhat if they aren’t getting what they want. It’s not like anyone involved actually cares if anyone actually clicks the links. Just having the links appear at all is often all that the spammers want.
The full on spam does get removed — once we’ve seen it (but they never get SEO juice — check the links)
Re: Re: Spam
Ah, good. I was concerned about that, but now I feel better.