If I see this shirt saturday, someone is going to the hosptial

[MarketingGuy]

I reported...

[RandyGator]

You need C-L-A-S-S to spell class

UCF is only 20% of the way to being a team with Class.

[Bull Matrix]

I dont know what is worse. The obscene word that they have on the shirt or the lack of creativity. It is not even funny to tell you the truth. I dont get it. At least come up with some better smack than that.

[bulls96go]

bullitin board

we have one pounding for someone it will be UCF.

i hope they say thank you

[Bobcat99]

Honestly, some of you guys are *way* too sensitive. This is what comes with the territory. Get used to it, kiddos.

[AndytheBull]

Honestly, some of you guys are *way* too sensitive. This is what comes with the territory. Get used to it, kiddos.

Violating our trademark and using it on a vulgar shirt makes us to sensitive? Then yes, we are too sensitive.

The Beat WVU shirt did not have either school's official logo, nor did it even mention USF. Hell, it could have theoretically been a shirt for Marshall fans(green shirt, smaking WVU)

[Bobcat99]

Honestly, some of you guys are *way* too sensitive. This is what comes with the territory. Get used to it, kiddos.

Violating our trademark and using it on a vulgar shirt makes us to sensitive? Then yes, we are too sensitive.

The Beat WVU shirt did not have either school's official logo, nor did it even mention USF. Hell, it could have theoretically been a shirt for Marshall fans(green shirt, smaking WVU)

Logos are only one part of it. Even using the letters "WVU" is a violation of their federally-registered trademark. (Trust me, I went through this eight years ago when Ohio State objected to Ohio registering "Ohio"...) Also using the word "Mountaineers" is a federally-registered trademark.

Anyway, that's not even my point. My point is that as one of the top copyright-violating universities in the country, we really should be over other people doing it.

[WWMJD]

Honestly, some of you guys are *way* too sensitive. This is what comes with the territory. Get used to it, kiddos.

Violating our trademark and using it on a vulgar shirt makes us to sensitive? Then yes, we are too sensitive.

The Beat WVU shirt did not have either school's official logo, nor did it even mention USF. Hell, it could have theoretically been a shirt for Marshall fans(green shirt, smaking WVU)

Logos are only one part of it. Even using the letters "WVU" is a violation of their federally-registered trademark. (Trust me, I went through this eight years ago when Ohio State objected to Ohio registering "Ohio"...) Also using the word "Mountaineers" is a federally-registered trademark.

Anyway, that's not even my point. My point is that as one of the top copyright-violating universities in the country, we really should be over other people doing it.

Generally, using another school's name, but not their logo, would fall under the doctrine of fair use.  Our use of "WVU" was not a violation of their trademark.  If so, you would be unable to refer to a school without violating a trademark.

[Bobcat99]

Honestly, some of you guys are *way* too sensitive. This is what comes with the territory. Get used to it, kiddos.

Violating our trademark and using it on a vulgar shirt makes us to sensitive? Then yes, we are too sensitive.

The Beat WVU shirt did not have either school's official logo, nor did it even mention USF. Hell, it could have theoretically been a shirt for Marshall fans(green shirt, smaking WVU)

Logos are only one part of it. Even using the letters "WVU" is a violation of their federally-registered trademark. (Trust me, I went through this eight years ago when Ohio State objected to Ohio registering "Ohio"...) Also using the word "Mountaineers" is a federally-registered trademark.

Anyway, that's not even my point. My point is that as one of the top copyright-violating universities in the country, we really should be over other people doing it.

Generally, using another school's name, but not their logo, would fall under the doctrine of fair use.  Our use of "WVU" was not a violation of their trademark.  If so, you would be unable to refer to a school without violating a trademark.

If you are referring to a school's athletic program with the registered trademark letters of that school, logo or not, on an item of commercial value, then a trademark violation is in effect -- regardless of the use of a "logo" or not. The shirt that started this thread would be a trademark violation if it simply said "USF sucks at football" without any use of a logo at all.

These are pretty well-established facts of trademark law, and occasionally enforced. The licensing fee is so small per-shirt that really, if you were making a non-offensive shirt, you could more than get approved and make a profit.

[WWMJD]

If you are referring to a school's athletic program with the registered trademark letters of that school, logo or not, on an item of commercial value, then a trademark violation is in effect -- regardless of the use of a "logo" or not. The shirt that started this thread would be a trademark violation if it simply said "USF sucks at football" without any use of a logo at all.

These are pretty well-established facts of trademark law, and occasionally enforced. The licensing fee is so small per-shirt that really, if you were making a non-offensive shirt, you could more than get approved and make a profit.

I assume this isn't the place to debate trademark law.  I would love to invite you to visit us at UF Law, though.  I would be more than happy to take you to sit in on one of our excellent intellectual property courses.  Maybe we can straighten you out 

Regardless of the debated issue, the shirt in question is absolutely a violation.  Gotta get used to it, guys, it will happen a lot more the more success we have.