Forget about American Needle vs. the National Football League or the looming legal fight over college athletes' right to be paid. In the world of sports law, USC v USC -- you know, Univeristy of South Carolina versus University of Southern California -- might be the juiciest case of them all.The dispute is over South Carolina's attempt to trademark an "SC" logo -- featuring an interlocking S and C -- that the school planned to put on its baseball team's new uniforms. The logo is similar, though not identical, to the "SC" logo that has long been identified with Southern Cal's sports teams and is also featured on the Trojans' official baseball hats.
The West Coast USC, a private school founded in 1880, has owned rights to the "SC" logo for over a century, and it filed an opposition to South Carolina's mark last year with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The trademark board sided with the Trojans, and yesterday, a federal appellate court in California upheld the decision, noting in its decision that South Carolina's "SC" mark was "legally identical" to Southern Cal's logo and could potentially create confusion among consumers.
After the decision came down, the schools' lawyers continued sparring through the media, with Southern Cal lawyer Scott Edelman chiding South Carolina's attempt to capitalize on USC's sports tradition. He also described South Carolina's mascot -- the Gamecock -- as "a goofy little chicken." In response, South Carolina's attorney, Neil C. Jones, said his "Southern manners" prevented him from responding to Edelman's barb.
(EhrlThePearl.com suggests the two schools settle the score on the gridiron --- not a bad idea, since the schools have split the two football games they've played, with the Trojans winning in 1980 and the 'Cocks prevailing in '83.)
The real question: When will fraternity guys stop wearing this South Carolina hat? It's been a lame campus/keg-side fashion statement for far too long.




