Anyone have extra Harvard Sucks shirts?

[Jason L]

Any of you by chance know where to get this year's Harvard Sucks shirt?  I was out of town for the game + most of that week so I wasnt around.   I hvae last years, but would like this years if anyone has extra they want to sell.   I am looking for one so I can wear it to the Lynah East game...better yet, anyone thinking bout making a Harvard Sucks shirt specifically for Lynah East? I'd definately be interested in one.


Jason

[Liz \'05]

Alternatively, you could make a Lynah East shirt that doesn't say "Harvard Sucks," i.e. something along the lines of "Lynah East: The Other Home of the Cornell Big Red."  It may take a little more thought to decipher for those Harvard (sucks) fans, but isn't "Harvard Sucks" a little overdone anyway?

[jtwcornell91]

[Q]Liz '05 Wrote:

 Alternatively, you could make a Lynah East shirt that doesn't say "Harvard Sucks," i.e. something along the lines of "Lynah East: The Other Home of the Cornell Big Red."  It may take a little more thought to decipher for those Harvard (sucks) fans, but isn't "Harvard Sucks" a little overdone anyway?[/q]

Whatever you do, just don't try to get anyone's permission for it.
;-)

[A-19]

whether or not you use "harvard" or "cornell" it's still trademark infringement, fyi.
and i remind you this is a public forum.
and even if you don't request permission initially, the schools have an uncanny way of finding you.

and just another note on a related topic which irritates me: harvard will threaten to prosecute you for making such shirts. but walk past the plaza by their science center (their sorta equivalent of ho plaza) in november and you can see all the anti-yale shirts in the world, sold by harvard student groups and financed by harvard university money. they sure can dish it out, but they can't take it.

-mike

[billhoward]

[Q]A-19 Wrote:  whether or not you use "harvard" or "cornell" it's still trademark infringement, fyi. and i remind you this is a public forum. and even if you don't request permission initially, the schools have an uncanny way of finding you. and just another note on a related topic which irritates me: harvard will threaten to prosecute you for making such shirts. but walk past the plaza by their science center (their sorta equivalent of ho plaza) in november and you can see all the anti-yale shirts in the world, sold by harvard student groups and financed by harvard university money. they sure can dish it out, but they can't take it.

-mike[/q]

Trademark infringement? Outside the arena, Harvard doesn't have a leg to stand on legally. You try to sell a likeness of John Harvard or a T-shirt saying Harvard Yard, maybe they've got rights to that. (They going to sue a photographer who takes a picture of campus from across the street?) Or a shirt that just says Harvard, I think that they've got rights to. But the minute the shirt says Harvard Sucks or Harvard Unfair to People of Color or ROTC Out of Harvard or My Sister at Pine Manor Was Molested at Harvard Mixer Weekend and All I Got Was This Lousy Shirt, the First Amendment argument is going to bubble to the top.

Inside, it's their house, their rules, and even if they agree after the fact that their rules were unfair, you still missed the game. They'd better charge some kind of "community standards" violation, unless they also plan to toss the Cornell students holding up Beat Harvard signs.

Maybe Alan Dershowitz could speak up on your behalf.

Personally, the best cheer is "This Is Our House." For that, Harvard has no response, especially if Cornell is up by 3-4 goals.

[Jason L]

I was actually at Harvard that weekend to visit my gf and goto the harvard-Yale game.  Some of those shirts were pretty vile, and if they werent getting kicked out for them, I hardly can see how they can kick someone out for a Harvard sucks one.

The shirt I'm referring to is basically a bulldog doing a puritan doggy-style.  There were some harvard shirts equally on the same level but that one stood out.

[Beeeej]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:Trademark infringement? Outside the arena, Harvard doesn't have a leg to stand on legally....But the minute the shirt says Harvard Sucks or Harvard Unfair to People of Color or ROTC Out of Harvard or My Sister at Pine Manor Was Molested at Harvard Mixer Weekend and All I Got Was This Lousy Shirt, the First Amendment argument is going to bubble to the top.[/q]

You go right ahead and make those shirts, Bill, and let Harvard take you to court after you ignore their Cease & Desist letter, so that you can make the First Amendment argument you believe will "bubble to the top."  On what basis, by the way?  I hardly think it qualifies as "parody" to say "Harvard Sucks."

Hermo's more of an expert in this particular area than I am, but I'm reasonably sure trademark simply doesn't work that way.  When you own the rights to a mark, you get to control how the mark is used, period - especially in situations where someone else wants to use the mark in a way that could devalue it.

Beeeej

[Pete Godenschwager]

[Q]I'm reasonably sure trademark simply doesn't work that way. When you own the rights to a mark, you get to control how the mark is used, period - especially in situations where someone else wants to use the mark in a way that could devalue it. [/Q]

This topic has recently come up with TiVo.  Apparently, "TiVo" can only be used as an adjective, and the company is aggressively policing this in the print and television media.  (You can't say, "I TiVo'd the game last night")  There's a brief article in the NY Times about it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/technology/13tivo.html?oref=login&oref=login

[billhoward]

[Q]Pete Godenschwager Wrote:

 [Q2]I'm reasonably sure trademark simply doesn't work that way. When you own the rights to a mark, you get to control how the mark is used, period - especially in situations where someone else wants to use the mark in a way that could devalue it. [/Q]
This topic has recently come up with TiVo.  Apparently, "TiVo" can only be used as an adjective, and the company is aggressively policing this in the print and television media.  (You can't say, "I TiVo'd the game last night")  There's a brief article in the NY Times about it here:



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 12/17/04 08:41AM by Pete Godenschwager.[/q]

I think the lawyers might say, "Asked and answered." It's deja vu all over again. TiVo has to send out the letters saying it's a noun not a verb to protect against a competitor in five years' time alleging it's common usage and not worthy of a trademark. TiVo's lawyers simply scanned letters used by Xerox corp. and then did a search and replace of "TiVo as a verb" for "Xerox as a verb." And Xerox borrowed the same letters from the Keenex people and the Hoover vacuum cleaner people. Our newspaper used to get the Xerox letters a lot. I always respected the usage, in part because I grew up in Rochester and "Xerox as a noun not verb" was ingrained into anyone who started their career with Gannett, but more importantly, "xerox" isn't a verb, and so it's bad writing. So basically good journalists or good editors a) tell Xerox to buzz off (usually simply by ignoring the letters and b) telling their staff not to use verbified proper nouns.

If TiVo doesn't send the letters, they might maybe possibly lose some control over the brand name or trademark. But as a practical matter TiVo has entered the lexicon as a verb and lawsuits won't change it.

When you're talking about non-commercial speech, if your speaking devalues the other guy's product, well, tough, so long as it wasn't libelous or slanderous. Plus you always have truth as a defense if there was malice.

Harvard can send all the cease and desist letters it wants to. Volume of certified mail doesn't make case law. It may frighten off some less well-heeled T-shirt peddlers or wearers.

There is history showing you might possibly "devalue" a product and still be standing on firm constitutional ground: Remember Al Franken used "fair and balanced" as part of his book title lampooning the right, and Fox on behalf of Bill "Fair and Balanced" O'Reilly sued Franken ... and the case was tossed out by a U.S. district judge back in 2003.

Harvard tries to sue you for wearing a Harvard Sucks T-shirt, you might have cause for countersuit. Depose all of Harvard's lawyers and ask them, as learned men, if they knew the law was opposite Harvard's intentions -- "you are a Harvard-educated lawyer, are you not, sir?" -- and if that's the case, that would be harrassment, and there I think you've got some solid ground underfoot.

But I also agree that the place to test this is outside Bright Center because initially the law is on the side of the lawmen. Your point is you want to see the game most of all and if possible annoy Harvard, but not give up the first to get the second.

It would be good to hear the opposite POV from lawyers who argued the "we got disparaged and won" side of things, so long as winning means in court and not just by wearing down the resources of a less well-heeled individual.

[Josh '99]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:

 [Q2]billhoward Wrote:Trademark infringement? Outside the arena, Harvard doesn't have a leg to stand on legally....But the minute the shirt says Harvard Sucks or Harvard Unfair to People of Color or ROTC Out of Harvard or My Sister at Pine Manor Was Molested at Harvard Mixer Weekend and All I Got Was This Lousy Shirt, the First Amendment argument is going to bubble to the top.[/Q]
You go right ahead and make those shirts, Bill, and let Harvard take you to court after you ignore their Cease & Desist letter, so that you can make the First Amendment argument you believe will "bubble to the top."  On what basis, by the way?  I hardly think it qualifies as "parody" to say "Harvard Sucks."

Hermo's more of an expert in this particular area than I am, but I'm reasonably sure trademark simply doesn't work that way.  When you own the rights to a mark, you get to control how the mark is used, period - especially in situations where someone else wants to use the mark in a way that could devalue it.[/q]I haven't taken trademark yet, so I can't really say.  I can tell you that the word "Harvard" is too short to be protected by copyright, but that under the parody standard applied to fair use of copyrighted terms, I don't think "Harvard Sucks" would qualify as parody.  My understanding of trademark law is similar to Beeeej's, but again, I haven't taken that class yet.

[Facetimer]

Perhaps someone should trademark the phrase "Harvard Sucks"

[Beeeej]

[Q]billhoward Wrote:
If TiVo doesn't send the letters, they might maybe possibly lose some control over the brand name or trademark. But as a practical matter TiVo has entered the lexicon as a verb and lawsuits won't change it.[/q]

I do know enough trademark law to know that consistent, vigorous defense of your mark is required to protect it against the sort of vernacular dilution of trademark you're talking about.  In other words, TiVo would be irresponsible not to send those letters.  As soon as they stop, you might as well add it to the dictionary and start calling all DVRs "tivos," because it'll become acceptable to use it as a generic.  Note that while this has happened to zippers, aspirin, and cellophane, it has not happened to Kleenex or Hoover - because they still vigorously defend their marks.  And nobody who knows the law has ever suggested they should stop.

[q]When you're talking about non-commercial speech, if your speaking devalues the other guy's product, well, tough, so long as it wasn't libelous or slanderous. Plus you always have truth as a defense if there was malice.[/q]

For there to have been "actual malice" in the freedom of speech sense, the speech has to have been false in the first place.  The definition of "actual malice" in this context is "knowledge of, or reckless disregard for knowledge of, falsity."  Which is completely irrelevant, because "Harvard Sucks" is opinion - and there's well-settled law that there is no such thing as a "false opinion" as long as it doesn't assert any false facts.

But it's one thing to call a forum thread "Harvard Sucks," and quite another to print it on a t-shirt and sell it.  That's not non-commercial speech, that's commercial activity and trademark infringement.

[q]Harvard can send all the cease and desist letters it wants to. Volume of certified mail doesn't make case law. It may frighten off some less well-heeled T-shirt peddlers or wearers.[/q]

Seriously.  Test it out!  I'm sure Floyd Abrams would laugh you out of his office.

[q]There is history showing you might possibly "devalue" a product and still be standing on firm constitutional ground: Remember Al Franken used "fair and balanced" as part of his book title lampooning the right, and Fox on behalf of Bill "Fair and Balanced" O'Reilly sued Franken ... and the case was tossed out by a U.S. district judge back in 2003.[/q]

...partly on the basis that he judged "fair and balanced" not to be a valid trademark, or a weak one at best.  But you'd still have to go to court to get that ruling, and I doubt you'd get a similar one on "Harvard."  In any event, one of the other major grounds for the ruling was that Fox was asking for an injunction against the book's sales, not damages for use of the trademarked phrase - and they had waited far too long (ten weeks) after becoming aware of the book's impending distribution to file for the injunction to be entitled to such drastic relief.

Dismissal of a case rarely means only that the underlying legal claim had no merit.

[q]Harvard tries to sue you for wearing a Harvard Sucks T-shirt, you might have cause for countersuit. Depose all of Harvard's lawyers and ask them, as learned men, if they knew the law was opposite Harvard's intentions -- "you are a Harvard-educated lawyer, are you not, sir?" -- and if that's the case, that would be harrassment, and there I think you've got some solid ground underfoot.[/q]

If you think a suit is frivolous, you're certainly entitled to file a request for Rule 11 sanctions.  And if they sue you for wearing such a shirt, that would be frivolous.  But a lawsuit for selling those shirts would have some pretty solid grounding in the law, and would absolutely not be grounds for a countersuit for harassment - and such a countersuit would be a pretty good way of bringing Rule 11 sanctions down on yourself.

Beeeej

[Beeeej]

I know you were joking, but just in case anybody took you seriously and is planning to do the legwork, I'm pretty sure the Trademark Office wouldn't let you do that, 'cause it contains another already valid trademark.   ::nut::

Beeeej

[ben03]

[Q]Jason L Wrote:
 I was actually at Harvard that weekend to visit my gf and goto the harvard-Yale game.  Some of those shirts were pretty vile, and if they werent getting kicked out for them, I hardly can see how they can kick someone out for a Harvard sucks one.

The shirt I'm referring to is basically a bulldog doing a puritan doggy-style.  There were some harvard shirts equally on the same level but that one stood out.[/q]

enough with all this legal jibber-jabber, just have LYNAH EAST on the front and a bear humping a block letter "H" on the back ... enough with all this trademark crap.

btw ... SUCKS sucks! sorry had to said ;-)

[A-19]

"Lynah" also happens to be a building owned by CU, so there is a possibility that it could also be covered (though this is arguable)

use of an H resembling Harvard's trademark is also infringement sadly

believe me, when we went through this ordeal 2 years ago, we pursued every avenue for discussion. you'd be surprised at what is covered by trademark.

and believe me gentlemen that harvard's defense of its trademark is....vigorous.

my observations come from a copyright and trademark law course i took and an experience i had with harvard and cornell's trademark departments over making a similar shirt.

-mike