A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday upheld Penn State’s complaint against online retailer Vintage Brand, which threatened to destroy the market for college sports gear.
Penn State proved that Vintage Brand, which sells classic T-shirts, lovely hats, retro sweaters, tights, magnets, koozies, pots, cutting boards and related products associated with sports teams, infringed PSU’s trademarks by selling products bearing the university’s pictures without permission. The judge awarded Penn State$ 28, 000 in restitution, but the verdict’s true value is in a criminal finding that copyright occurred. The conclusion confirms a well-established connection between trademark laws and college sporting goods.

Penn State sued in 2021, noting that Vintage boldly sells goods that “free ride” off the school’s fame by using logos and pictures. Buyers may have mistakenly assumed that Penn State sells products through a registered owner. The products at issue were sold from 2018 to 2021 and, according to Vintage, generated less than$ 25, 000 in revenue. Those items incorporated Penn State-related factual images and associated trademarks:
Over the past few years, academic home faculty have been paying close attention to Penn State v. Vintage Brands. Vintage’s security and how it might alter how we understand brand law are of particular interest.
Without success, Vintage argued that trademark law should apply to its use of traditional images, which it claimed are currently public domain as documented history. A brand is not intended to be an elegant or decorative feature, according to the business, which stressed that it used a disclaimer to warn consumers that its goods were no Penn State licensed. Alternatively, a trademark should point out a good’s source and set it apart from other products. Consumers may not be able to accept that Penn State made or authorized the production of antique products based on Penn State’s storied sport history in this context. Alternatively, the use is only ornate or decorative.
If that defence had prevailed, it would have given more confidence to Vintage and other online retailers that specialize in creating and marketing vintage goods. The lawsuit against Vintage is certainly unique to Penn State. Purdue, Arizona, Arizona State, Cal Berkeley, UCLA, Colorado, Oregon, Oregon State, USC, Stanford, Utah, Washington and Washington State have even filed match. They have largely the same set of objections and contend that unauthorised use devalues sales. The value of the licenses schools sell to clothing and merchandise companies that produce sweaters, collectibles, and other products is also diminished by unauthorized sales.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has the right to challenge the decision. Schools and their official licensees are in awe of the decision, even though it is not a binding precedent in cases in additional federal districts.