Boise State’s Silly Trademark For ‘Non-Green Football Fields” May Finally Get Challenged
from the black-and-blue dept
Almost exactly seven years ago, we discussed the absolute silliness that was Boise State University somehow getting the USPTO to grant it a trademark for a football field that is “non-green.” If you’re not a college football fan, some context is in order. Decades back, the school didn’t want to pay to have its field resodded with grass, so it instead put in cheaper turf that was colored royal blue. If you’ve never seen the field on television or in person, it’s absolutely ugly. So ugly, in fact, that it’s also absolutely awesome and has become a distinctive part of the BSU brand. Because of that, getting the original trademark the school got for the blue-colored field made some sense. But in 2010, the school managed to expand the mark to include all fields that are “non-green.” From my original post on the matter:
Now, we could sit around and argue whether or not having a blue football field was a thing fit to be trademarked. Personally, considering the specific color the school used, I could buy an argument that fans that see the field do indeed think of Boise State. I certainly do. But the school expanded the trademark in 2010 to fields not just blue, but fields that are “non-green.” And that’s crazy. Bradlee Frazer, an IP attorney working with the school, has stated that any non-green athletic field carries with it the risk of confusion pertaining to Boise State. He can say that all he wants, but such a stance likely wouldn’t survive a challenge from another school.
But those challenges have never come, mostly because Boise State is quite liberal with freely licensing the ability to have non-green fields to other schools.
And that has continued to be true. Colleges and high schools that have decided to use non-traditional color schemes for their football fields have traditionally sought approval from BSU. And, to be clear, BSU has continued to be fairly sanguine about approving such uses, so long as there is no real callback to BSU. Because of that, the obviously and overtly broad trademark BSU has hasn’t ever been challenged.
That may be changing. SUNY Morrisville, a Division 3 school, recently put in its own synthetic turf, colored deep black. And the school reportedly didn’t seek any sort of approval from BSU in doing so.
By going emo, the school joined a handful of select college programs that have, over the last two decades, broken from the traditional gridiron greens, including Coastal Carolina, Eastern Washington, Eastern Michigan and Central Arkansas.
And yet, in joining the ranks of these non-verdant outliers, SUNY Morrisville went a step bolder by breaking a norm that has been dutifully conformed to by the other nonconformists: seeking permission from Boise State University, which, in 1986, became the first university to implement a non-traditional athletic field color with its now-famous, blue “smurf turf.”
And now we get to see whether BSU really wants to try to enforce its trademark and claim this is infringement, or else it risks breaking the precedent that all these schools need to seek permission for football fields that are not colored the traditional grass-green.
I certainly hope BSU does try to enforce its mark, if only so that SUNY Morrisville can fight back and get this stupid trademark invalidated, or at least pared back to covering the royal blue colored field. I can’t account for how or why the USPTO allowed such an overly broad trademark to be approved in the first place, but I am damned sure that any competent attorney for SUNY Morrisville could get it rescinded upon challenge.
Filed Under: football fields, non-green field, trademark
Companies: boise state, suny morrisville
Comments on “Boise State’s Silly Trademark For ‘Non-Green Football Fields” May Finally Get Challenged”
That’s not really enough, though, is it? It’s basically just Pavlov’s dog. Maybe you think of your favorite coffee shop when you smell coffee, but so what?
The relevant question should be whether anyone would be misled to the point of making a financial mistake. Are you accidentally gonna buy tickets to a game at my neon-pink field, due to a mistaken impression that you’re giving money to BSU or an affiliate? What if I painted it royal blue?
Occasionally there have been events that make us question the intelligence of sports fans (especially with non-American football), but I think the vast majority of them would at least know which game they’re watching and which stadium it’s at. Let the market decide whether a field color is a rip-off, an homage, a hot trend, or a concession to practicality.
Re:
To be honest, I’d never heard that BSU had a football team, let alone played on a “non-green field”. I guess that disqualifies me as an “average moron in a hurry”?
Re: Re:
Yes. With respect to trademark law in this context, the phrase would refer to someone intending to do business with BSU who’s tricked into doing business with some competitor, because the product and/or marketing are too similar.
Is that a entire field or a path of grass 1×1.
I know that in nz and other places they do logo’s on the field. So the field is not entirely green is that different from a non-green field in the eyes of the courts?
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/sport/395658/what-it-s-like-to-share-the-field-with-the-all-blacks for an example
Re:
The field is green in your photo, that they paint lines on the field doesn’t make it a non-green field, nor does painting logos. The grass in your photo is still green.
By contrast the turf (the artificial grass) itself is blue. No amount of scrubing or scouring will make the turf green.
Logos and lines are bespoke to the individual purpose the field is put in the moment. That temporary painting does not change the color of the field.
Its the US and IP law. A judge might decide to ignore all that and decide putting down the lines of the game to be played or the logos of the teams playing renders the field non-green, but that’s not going to survive appeals once the NFL and MLB take issue. (Outside the US, i imagine football clubs would take issue, but they aren’t the powerhouse in the US they are in the global market.)
Uh, so the commercially-available injury generator you bought, you get to trademark? WTF is that?
And again, WTAF with public institutions and trademark?
The idiots in a hurry work for the USTPO…
Next up is the band 4 Non Blondes claiming copyright infringement for any band name with any hair color other than blonde.
Re:
Like the Beatles? I would say Genesis, but I think Mike Rutherford is blond…
Is anybody surprised (or shocked) about USPTO allowing overly broad trademarks? You must be new around here.
Having said that, I wish I had a simple solution.
I don’t see anything on the trademark’s page on the USPTO website indicating that “in 2010, the school managed to expand the mark to include all fields that are “non-green.” The documentation states “The color(s) blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark.” Where did you get the information about the trademark being “expanded?”