crests

[gogoaphi]

Originally posted by ariesrising
I just have small images of crests on my Greek pages, and many of them are monochromatic so they don't accurately represent what the crest looks like.

If anyone has a big huge Alpha Phi crest, please direct me to it or PM me....I need one with as much detail as possible as well and I'm only finding fairly small ones.

I have a GREAT Alpha Phi crest ... Let me try and find it for you and I can e-mail it. Can you PM me your e-mail or something???

aoe

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Rudey
So what you are saying is you don't know if there would be an infringement and that the law does allow for the use of these images in certain situations.

Not exactly. What I am saying is that based on the very meager information that the original poster gave us ("I need them for a piece I am doing"), (1) it is impossible for anyone reading this thread to know whether that poster's use would be a copyright/trademark infringement, (2) it is impossible for anyone reading this thread to know whether that poster's use would not be a copyright/trademark infringement, and (3) the original poster needs to be aware of the potential of copyright/trademark issues.

I would hire IvySpice as my lawyer as long as she works at least 100 hours a week.

Well, since this area of the law is very specialized -- and I readily admit it is not my speciality -- I wouldn't hire anyone who doesn't specialize in it. That said, I've read enough of IvySpice's posts to know that I'd be very glad to have her as my lawyer in almost any situtation, and I would not want her to be the lawyer on other side.

[bruinaphi]

On a slight tangent... It is my understanding that there is a recent court decision where a fraternity won a trademark infringement suit against someone for unauthorized use of their ritual. I don't know the facts of the case or if there was a published decision but it makes this whole issue very interesting.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by MysticCat81
Not exactly. What I am saying is that based on the very meager information that the original poster gave us ("I need them for a piece I am doing"), (1) it is impossible for anyone reading this thread to know whether that poster's use would be a copyright/trademark infringement, (2) it is impossible for anyone reading this thread to know whether that poster's use would not be a copyright/trademark infringement, and (3) the original poster needs to be aware of the potential of copyright/trademark issues.

Well, since this area of the law is very specialized -- and I readily admit it is not my speciality -- I wouldn't hire anyone who doesn't specialize in it. That said, I've read enough of IvySpice's posts to know that I'd be very glad to have her as my lawyer in almost any situtation, and I would not want her to be the lawyer on other side.

Again this person can be using this in a way that doesn't infringe. This is a correct statement. And the law does allow for use in certain situations.

Let's not add extra words to these statements when you are not billing out for this, you know?

-Rudey

[TSteven]

SIGMA CHI WINS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE

SIGMA CHI WINS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE
Court of Appeals affirms District Court's ruling

VISTA, Calif. 9/4/02—The Sigma Chi Fraternity, a non-profit organization committed to the ideals of friendship, justice and learning, today announced a favorable ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, affirming the lower court’s ruling that Taylor Corporation, d.b.a. Greek Lifestyles, was guilty of two counts of trademark infringement and one count of unfair competition.

“The Court upheld our long-standing claim that the unauthorized use of Sigma Chi’s trademarks is a violation of the Fraternity’s trademark rights,” said Jack Wheat, Esq., leader of southeastern regional law firm Stite and Harbison’s Intellectual Property Services Group and lead counsel for Sigma Chi. “We are confident that this decision will serve as a strong precedent in favor of fraternity and sorority licensing programs.”

Prior to the Court’s decision, The International Trademark Association, a not-for-profit organization, whose more than 3,800 members have a special interest in trademarks, submitted a brief urging the Court of Appeals to “uphold the principles of unfair competition law applied by the District Court.” The Court of Appeals did just that, and more, by stating in its decision, “We affirm the judgment entered in this case based on the District Court’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion filed on April 7, 2000.”

“After Taylor’s failed attempt to overturn the ruling in Sigma Chi’s favor, there should be no question regarding the trademark rights of Sigma Chi and other fraternal organizations,” said Dan Shaver, president of Affinity Marketing Consultants Inc., a licensing consultancy. “We are pleased that the Court affirmed Sigma Chi’s rights and reinforced that fraternities and sororities enjoy the same legal protection against infringement that other intellectual property owners enjoy.”

Sigma Chi originally filed suit upon discovery that Taylor was marketing and selling, without authorization, merchandise bearing Sigma Chi’s registered marks. Sigma Chi continues to aggressively enforce its trademark rights to ensure that only the highest quality products and services contain its marks. Through a comprehensive program, Sigma Chi licenses vendors who provide quality products, reasonable prices and exceptional service to the Fraternity’s more than 200,000 members, their families and friends.

© 2004, Sigma Chi International Headquarters

[ReyNYCPR]

Originally posted by StumpsGirl
I have never seen that one and it is very very interesting!!! I really like it!

Thanks Stumpgirl!

----------
Alot of what I'm about to say has probably already been said and not that I want to add more to this heated topic, I'm still gonna do it anyway

I just quickly double checked with my National Organization. They said flat out, the use of our fraternity crest is strictly for those within our National Chapters, and even then, we still have restrictions. We can't use our crest in any way for profit. As for people that are not in our Organization, they have to request permission from the National Organization, even if it is for something as harmless as educational purposes.

Now I know I'm contradicting myself, seeing as how earlier in this thread I posted my fraternity's crest, but I didn't really think it would be a big deal. Like the others who posted their crest on this thread, its more of being proud of your crest and what it symbolizes, but I do understand why you must request permission first. And like someone said before, if this persons decides to use our crest in forms that are inappropriate, even if they did request permission, they will suffer the consequences themselves.

Just my 2 quarters, nickels and dimes...

[Janerz222]

an academic tangent:

You legal types out there, a question:

In the back of my fuzzy mind, I seem to recall something about entities needing to exhibit measures to protect their trademark(s) in order to maintain enforceable rights to them. In other words, if a company/entity is careless with its marks and does nothing to restrict their use, then they'll be on shakier legal ground if, in the future, they decide to protect/sue.

Is this at all accurate, or have I confused patents and trademarks?

[Rudey]

This is an example of someone using a trademark illegally. Of course there are ways to use it within the bounds of the law as well.

-Rudey

Originally posted by TSteven
SIGMA CHI WINS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE

SIGMA CHI WINS TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CASE
Court of Appeals affirms District Court's ruling

VISTA, Calif. 9/4/02—The Sigma Chi Fraternity, a non-profit organization committed to the ideals of friendship, justice and learning, today announced a favorable ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, affirming the lower court’s ruling that Taylor Corporation, d.b.a. Greek Lifestyles, was guilty of two counts of trademark infringement and one count of unfair competition.

“The Court upheld our long-standing claim that the unauthorized use of Sigma Chi’s trademarks is a violation of the Fraternity’s trademark rights,” said Jack Wheat, Esq., leader of southeastern regional law firm Stite and Harbison’s Intellectual Property Services Group and lead counsel for Sigma Chi. “We are confident that this decision will serve as a strong precedent in favor of fraternity and sorority licensing programs.”

Prior to the Court’s decision, The International Trademark Association, a not-for-profit organization, whose more than 3,800 members have a special interest in trademarks, submitted a brief urging the Court of Appeals to “uphold the principles of unfair competition law applied by the District Court.” The Court of Appeals did just that, and more, by stating in its decision, “We affirm the judgment entered in this case based on the District Court’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion filed on April 7, 2000.”

“After Taylor’s failed attempt to overturn the ruling in Sigma Chi’s favor, there should be no question regarding the trademark rights of Sigma Chi and other fraternal organizations,” said Dan Shaver, president of Affinity Marketing Consultants Inc., a licensing consultancy. “We are pleased that the Court affirmed Sigma Chi’s rights and reinforced that fraternities and sororities enjoy the same legal protection against infringement that other intellectual property owners enjoy.”

Sigma Chi originally filed suit upon discovery that Taylor was marketing and selling, without authorization, merchandise bearing Sigma Chi’s registered marks. Sigma Chi continues to aggressively enforce its trademark rights to ensure that only the highest quality products and services contain its marks. Through a comprehensive program, Sigma Chi licenses vendors who provide quality products, reasonable prices and exceptional service to the Fraternity’s more than 200,000 members, their families and friends.

© 2004, Sigma Chi International Headquarters

where is the original person who started this thread? with all of this being said, the original poster has yet to respond to any of this?!??!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by peanutttu
where is the original person who started this thread? with all of this being said, the original poster has yet to respond to any of this?!??!

It doesn't really matter does it?

-Rudey

Originally posted by Rudey
It doesn't really matter does it?

-Rudey

no, and i never said it did. just asking a question....that's all!

[Tom Earp]

Just got off of the Phone with Hdq.

While the individual is the licenseing agent, there is no worry of something doing for free unless they are trying to Make money or using it in an abusive situation.

Brother J K did get on site and check it out after I sent it to him.

While this individual has certain Rights, His Presentation was wrong and left a sour taste in many mouths.

We just had Legislation Passed at General Assembly it is not out to hurt people, just to cover, Our, each and everyones rights.

Basically Our Rights as Greek Organizations are covered from unscrupiousl people, it is still covered. Each Vendor does give a certain amount % back to the Gerneral Greek Organizations.

But, as He explained to me, it is still up to the Organization to have it presented and make a final decision whether to proceed with any type of suit.

[Optimist Prime]

this isn't as big of a deal as when we all gave our rituals to that one guy to write his paper. Found out that all initiations are very similliar.

[IvySpice]

They said flat out, the use of our fraternity crest is strictly for those within our National Chapters, and even then, we still have restrictions. We can't use our crest in any way for profit. As for people that are not in our Organization, they have to request permission from the National Organization, even if it is for something as harmless as educational purposes.

True, but just to clarify, they have to do that in order to comply with your national regulations, not necessarily in order to comply with the law.

In other words, if a company/entity is careless with its marks and does nothing to restrict their use, then they'll be on shakier legal ground if, in the future, they decide to protect/sue.

This is 100% correct, and a very interesting area of the law. "Aspirin" used to be a trademark of the Bayer company, and fell into the public domain in the USA. In some other countries, such as Canada, though, the trademark is still good, and the brand is just called Aspirin! Other brands of pain reliever in Canada have to call the ingredient by its chemical name.

http://www.aspirin.ca/

Terms like "kleenex" and "band-aid" are used as generic words in our language, just as "aspirin" is, to the point that you can find all those words in any dictionary...but because the Kleenex and Band-Aid companies have done a better job protecting their brands than Bayer did, other companies cannot use those trademarks. Thus, on the box it has to say "Puffs disposable facial tissue" and "Curad adhesive bandages," even though no one outside Curad headquarters ever says "Bring me an adhesive bandage!" when we need a band-aid.

P.S. Thanks, MysticCat, that's very sweet.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by AlphaPhiBubbles
but this is public information.

But its intellectual property that is NOT public domain.

The bigger issue is that if a GLO does not aggressively protect its intellectual property, that property can become public domain.

How would you like it if the name of "Alpha Phi" was no longer the property of Alpha Phi?