This thread is on topic. We're still discussing Johana and Gamma Phi Beta.

I was just curious about the limits of organizations' ability to control their trademarks vs. individuals right to express themselves and use goods that they purchased. For example, I'm a horrible runner. Could Nike say that I wasn't allowed to publicly run in their shoes because it might reflect poorly on them?

;)

LOL!! Help us all.

Shut up. :D :D :D

Nike isn't a private organization where you must be invited to be a member. Nike is a public company that sells its goods and services to whoever chooses to pay for them. The comparison is completely silly and invalid.

This is true, but I think her question is still valid. SHOULD GPhiB (or any sorority) be able to have control over non-members representing themselves as members? Because it seems to me that that is exactly what Johanna has done. She is no longer a member of Gamma Phi Beta, but by simply wearing that shirt, she has made almost everyone believe that she is. Therefore, she is representing an org that she is not even a part of.

However, Greek organizations license their logos and symbols to companies that sell merchandise to the public. I've never been asked to show my badge or initiation certificate when I've purchased something with my organization's symbols. So in essence, Greek merchandise is sold to whoever chooses to pay for it, much like Nike.

Do you ever bring anything valid to the table? Or are you just an incessant troll with nothing better to do than post one liners?

Yes, Nike and a GLO are quite different. However, as gonegreek says, the letter merchandise is still sold to any member of the public willing to pay for it. Perhaps a better analogy would be sports team licensed merchandise. Chances are good that someone walking around in an LA Lakers T-shirt isn't actually on the team. Do the Lakers have any control over what people can do while wearing their shirts?

Well, I wouldn't say it's silly & invalid.

Regarding the legal matter, it just isn't something that everyone knows. I only know about it because I just took a class on Constitutional law. (Wouldn't it be great to say everyone remembers things learned in high school classes?)

When we agree to become members of organizations (whether they're Greek, jobs, etc.), we do have a choice on whether we want to follow any of the (reasonable, meaning legal) restrictions place on us: we can join & do what's asked of us, or we can choose to not join. As someone mentioned earlier, the prohibition of taking those rights away only applies to the government.

Granted, if she is no longer a member, that's different. I don't even know if there are reprecussions for that, because she wasn't wearing her letters while making any false accusations about the organization.

Excuse me???? That was a joke between me and my soror. And speaking of wearing letters, etc. what does your screenname mean?

Now back to the discussion at hand and the real posters. Delta has licensed vendors for which we must give approval to what they sell. But we have no control over the non-licensed vendors--all we can basically do is threaten to sue them if they misuse our symbols, but who really has the funds to do that?

As for selling merchandise, that would also be hard to control since many people (non-members) buy 'nalia for their friends or relatives.

The biggest issue I see in this case is the fact that Johanna chose to resign her membership, yet still wear the 'nalia. In the BGLO world we call that perpetrating. And it is not unusual to "ask" a perp of your org. to give you their 'nalia.

I also think that the sorority in this case may be able to bring legal action, because of the signed documents.

ROFL!

At the same time, if I wear a shirt that says Harvard Alumni Association Member on television, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a member of it -- it means I'm wearing a t-shirt, not necessarily that I'm a member. And if you believe that a person is a member of an organization merely because they are wearing some letters, then I have some ocean-front property in Utah to sell you.

Joanna probably got that shirt while she was part of the organization, and she hasn't thrown it out yet. After a member quits or is asked to leave an organization, a national sorority doesn't exactly have the right to demand all merchandise with their letters back -- she may have purchased it from a store, not her headquarters. If organizations don't like seeing ex-members wearing their stuff, they should be more careful about who they pick for membership.

I'm sure there's a legal precedent on the likelihood of things like this....i.e. a 10 year old girl wearing a Lakers shirt is obviously not a member of the team. Anyone who would think she is is stupid.

And I'm sorry, but when someone got terminated from my chapter, we went to her dorm/apartment and removed her merchandise...if she was enough of a nut job to buy more off the internet or from the Greek store and wear it, we would have made sure everyone knew she was NOT a member. If this was my chapter and someone who got terminated was wearing my letters, I'd be screaming to MTV and posting on their boards 24/7 until they blurred the letters out.

I know this probably isn't something the Gamma Phis want to speak about, but honestly, sometimes it depends why someone terminated. If she terminated simply because she couldn't afford it, they might still consider her a sister and this is why they're not raising hell with MTV. She still shouldn't be wearing letters, however, if she's no longer an official member.