The Great Change: Turning Cathy into a Lawyer

Not only is Texas A&M suing the Seahawks for trademark infringement for using the term, "The 12th Man," but shades of Dallas Cap and Emblem are cropping up. Boston Professional Hockey Association v. Dallas Cap and Emblem Manufacturing Inc., 510 F.2d 1004, 1012 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 868, 46 L. Ed. 2d 98, 96 S. Ct. 132 (1975).

In that case the defendant was manufacturing and selling embroidered emblems that depicted the trademarks of sports teams. The sports teams successfully sued for trademark infringement in a decision that has not been without criticism. While the defendant had been selling the patches with the trademarked logos without the permission of the trademark holder, it's not obvious that such an action itself is in violation of the Lanham Act (the statute dealing with trademark law). The purpose of a trademark is to make clear who is the source of a good or service. If the defendant was selling a good with the logo on it without permission, that would likely be a trademark violation because it would cause consumer confusion as to who was the source of the good - the trademark owner or the defendant. But to sell the logos themselves, apart from any other good, is not clearly infringing behavior. Except according to the Dallas Cap and Emblem court.

What brings it to mind is a friend of mine in Seattle. Apparently Friday was "Seahawks Day" in school, and her son had neglected to tell her this before Thursday. Which was a problem because he owned no Seahawks clothing, and none was to be had anywhere in Seattle, the shelves having already all been swept bare by other ravenous fans.

Being a resourceful mother, however, she solved this wardrobe problem by going online and finding a logo. She then printed it out on special paper and ironed it onto one of his plain t-shirts. Emergency over, problem solved.

So what do you think? Trademark infringer, or Mother of the Year? My vote's on the latter...