Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Students proudly wearing and buying shirts from Joe College can thank business owner Larry Sinks for fighting a legal battle with Kansas Athletics Inc. that ended in a settlement in July 2007. But the battle isn’t over.
A federal judge ruled Monday that Sinks owes Kansas Athletics Inc. $667,507 in attorney fees and court expenses after the settlement ended with Sinks awarding Kansas Athletics Inc. $127,337 in damages for “trademark infringement.”
Jim Marchiony, associate athletics director, said the shirts created confusion in the marketplace and ultimately took money away from student scholarships funded by license revenue. Marchiony told the Lawrence Journal-World that Kansas Athletics Inc. earned about $2 million per year in licensing revenues.
“Every unlicensed shirt sold means a licensed shirt isn’t being sold,” Marchiony said, “Larry Sinks is still selling shirts that are not acceptable.” Marchiony said any blue shirt with “Kansas” was a KU trademark.
Clark Siebert, Pretty Prairie senior and owner of a Joe College T-shirt, said he thought most students knew the difference between KU shirts and Joe College shirts, and the latest amount Sinks had to pay was “ridiculous.”
“He’s just trying to make a living with his T-shirt shop,” Siebert said.
Marchiony, however, said Sinks had been contacted on multiple occasions to correct his illegal practices and Kansas Athletics Inc. did not want to go to trial.
“The amount is something we don’t have a real feeling about,” Machiony said, “It’s the message from the jury.”
Sinks, who was not available for comment Tuesday, told the Lawrence Journal-World that he didn’t have $667,507.
Sink’s attorney, James Tilly, said he wasn’t sure what Monday’s ruling meant for Joe College’s future. He said if Sinks made the decision to file an appeal, the case would move to the 10th district federal appeals court in Denver, the next step in this process.
Alex Herman, Hays third-year law student, said Sinks had 30 days after court ruling to file an appeal under federal law.
“This is clearly a devastating decision,” Herman said, “I assume this would put him out of business.”
Herman said he didn’t like seeing the shirts and thought they confused people who weren’t familiar with the store, but he also said he saw the value in having an independent business.
“On one hand he should have known the risk, but at the same time it’s tough to see a business owner shaken down by the university,” Herman said.
Marchiony said the intention was never to put Joe College out of business, but rather see that Sinks not continue selling shirts that breach trademark infringement.
— — Edited by Betsy Cutcliff
Mallot and Haworth Halls, two of the larger ...
1 comment
Lawrence Settles Lawrence graduate student “I like T-Pain ...
1 comment
Mallot and Haworth Halls, already two of the ...
1 comment
It was the symmetry of this sidewalk that ...
1 comment
Texting while driving is the cause of many ...
1 comment
Comments
Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...
Any blue shirt with Kansas is a KU trademark? It is downright frightening that the Athletics Department has the hubris to think they can copyright the combination of a primary color and the name of a state.
September 30, 2009 at 12:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
uofk03 (anonymous) says...
No, Hendrix. A JURY determined that they violation trademark law, which I'm guessing never of us completely understand. Sinks ignored court orders, multiple times, and continued to make the shirts anyway.
Oh, and Lauren Hendricks: students shouldn't thank Larry Sinks at all. Remember, the licensing revenue lost would have gone to scholarships for students, mostly non-athletes. What an incredibly biased way to start a story.
September 30, 2009 at 5:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...
I don't dispute that some of the shirts do violate copyright law; but I am questioning the university claiming to extend that protection as far as they did. What's next, copyrighting the shape of the state of Kansas because it used to appear on the Allen Fieldhouse Court?
If you recall, the jury found some of the shirts to violate constitutional law and others not to. Let's leave the determination to the jury; my comment specifically referred to Jim Marchiony's comment.
September 30, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...
I mean copyright law, not constitutional law.
September 30, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LawrenceGrown (anonymous) says...
Hendrix, stop blowing smoke out of your ass. You know nothing about the legal proceedings that went on in the Sinks trial. That entire store was a blatant copyright infringement, not matter what Sinks' printed signs said. Wake the hell up.
September 30, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kupeach (anonymous) says...
Hey, how about we tone down the animosity a little bit? Sheesh.
September 30, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hendrix321 (anonymous) says...
For the second time, I said that I fully agree that many of the shirts are copyright infringements. Where did I specifically defend any shirt other than one that would have the word "Kansas" on the color blue, and why are you attacking me for supposedly being ignorant? I've been in the store and I know exactly what's in there, and I didn't say anything about the signs on the front of the store. Calm down. The only thing I was referring to was Jim Marchiony's statement, which none of you have responded to; you've just attacked me for no reason.
September 30, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcc (anonymous) says...
If I hear "you can't trademark colors" or "I can't believe KU thinks it can trademark the word "Kansas"" one more time I think I'm going to vomit. Admittedly, intellectual property is not the most straightforward field of the law, and it doesn't surprise me that a bunch of undergrads (or laypersons on the ljworld, for that matter) don't understand it. But please, educate yourselves before directing such inflammatory remarks toward the athletics department. I'm sorry if this is a shock to you, but color schemes and words can constitute a trademark. Even "Kansas," white and blue. Furthermore, in this case, if the overall context of a design has the tendency to confuse people who see it as to whether it was officially licensed by KU, then it is an infringement of KU's trademark if it is not licensed. You can dislike the law all you want, and I would encourage you to write your legislators if you feel strongly enough about it in order to overhaul the current state of intellectual property law. However, until such a thing happens, KU is absolutely within its legal rights to go after Joe College. End of story.
September 30, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LawrenceGrown (anonymous) says...
^ Miced.
September 30, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
simplyamazing03 (anonymous) says...
I like Joe College, I know the University doesn't sell those. I understand they violated laws, shame on them. But, seriously ... it's just a shirt. I honestly don't think the scholarships would have benefited very many people. KU doesn't hand a lot of money out. It sucks, but I still love the school. However, I also love Joe College & wish the Athletic Department would just leave them alone. The students love the shirts, they are worn all across the state. I've seen six year olds wear them and sixty year olds wear them. You go to any Jayhawk game and a vast majority of the shirts there are Joe College shirts. Is somebody a bit jealous? . . Only kidding, but it could be seen that way a bit.
September 30, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Abita (anonymous) says...
RCC, thanks for giving people yet another reason to dislike lawyers. Let me apologize for the lowly undergrads who don't understand all the complexities of property law. It must be so difficult for you to endure. Hang in there, sport.
Any law student or lawyer knows that there are always two sides to the argument and courts are always going different ways. Can color designate trademark? The USSC heard a case on it as late as 1995. The benchmark for allowing a color as a trademark is set fairly high. Are you a law student? Would you be this big a snob responding to a classmate's comment in class?
September 30, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
georgekaplan (anonymous) says...
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me! Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW.. and run off into the hills, or wherever.. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: "Did little demons get inside and type it?" I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts. But there is one thing I do know - Joe College t-shirts are dumb.
October 2, 2009 at 8:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pantheon (anonymous) says...
Yo, Joe College, I'm really happy for you, and imma let you finish, but tshirthell had one of the best t-shirts of all time!
October 2, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oswaldorf (anonymous) says...
10,000,000 points for the Caveman Lawyer reference. That is all.
October 5, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )