University Suing Aggie Store Over "Saw 'Em Off" Logo

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 9:54 AM CST in Texas Longhorns Football

Texas A&M blog The 12th Manchild notes that the University of Texas is suing an Aggie retailer for its "saw 'em off" anti-Longhorn memorabilia.

Penis envy, defined.

The store being sued is Aggieland Outfitters, a College Station based retailer founded by a 1991 Texas A&M graduate. The University of Texas' lawyers allege that the store's popular "saw 'em off" logos violate the University's trademark protections. Browsing the store, it's easy to see why. Virtually every product for sale features an exact image of the University's logo, only caricatured with Bevo's horns sawed off.

There are two issues here worth commenting on. First, the lawsuit itself. On the one hand, the University must, and does, work hard to protect its copyright, or it loses its legal claim on the mark. There is, without question, a compelling legal reason for filing suit.

On the other hand, it's unclear why the University is choosing to sue the outfitter now. As The 12th Manchild points out, the suit was filed just a week after the Longhorns lost to the Aggies on the football field for the first time in seven years. Filing suit now reeks of sour grapes and petty retribution.

More importantly, and this gets to the second issue worth commenting on, filing suit validates the silliness that is the anti-Texas obsession of Texas A&M. For years and years, Longhorn graduates have proudly smirked at the insecurities of Aggies. The entire university culture revolves around being everything the University of Texas is not, a practice I've found endlessly amusing and personally gratifying. Jealousy breeds contempt, and the "saw 'em off" logos are nothing if not contemptuous.

I'm rather peeved with The 12th Manchild right now for bashing BON and Sports Blogs Nation, without explanation, when he found out he'd been nominated for the "Best Big 12 Blog" award. I'm fine with someone, especially an Aggie, slamming BON. We're not all that kind when discussing Texas A&M. But I was the one who nominated Brad to begin with, so I'm not altogether thrilled to be slapped in his post notifying his readers of his nomination.

Still, I agree with Brad on this one. Texas isn't doing itself any favors by suing this Aggie store. The timing reeks. The message is the wrong one. While there are clear and supportable reasons for protecting the University's copyright... this just isn't one of them.

--PB--

Tweet Comment 49 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Is this a lawsuit they can win.

Given that it is not an exact replica and that the logo may fall under the description of a parody. Of course I am not an attorney so maybe someone who is can enlighten me.

by billb on Jan 22, 2007 10:05 AM CST reply actions

This makes sense

Didn't UT sue some place in Austin a few years back over using the name "Bevo"? If they'll go after local retailers, I don't see why this is any surprise.

Vince Young wins football games.

by chief on Jan 22, 2007 10:09 AM CST reply actions

Sure

And that's why I noted that there's a compelling legal reason for this. The University must, and does, vigorously protect the image.

It's the timing that's problematic. It's hard to imagine the University just now found the store. Even if, improbably, it did, choosing to sue one week after the Aggies first football win in seven years is a bad idea.

If you ask me.

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 10:11 AM CST up reply actions

Has anyone ever seen the Bible

scripture quote T-shirt?
It says something like, "and I shall smash the Horns....(something rather)"

I've tried describing this to non-Texans. I feel embarrased to be from the same state as Aggie.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Jan 22, 2007 10:09 AM CST reply actions

it must be noted

although the timing is indeed bad, it must be noted that UT has always been very protective of its trademark, going so far as to sue restaurants in the Austin area that feature a longhorn logo too close to the university's. this isn't just about a&m. my guess is that if the company used a generic outline of a longhorn that wasn't so close to the university's trademark, there wouldn't be a problem. hell, that article in the Battalion said that the patent office denied his application for a trademark of the sawed off horns because "The similarities among the marks and the goods are so great to create a likelihood of confusion." But of course that means nothing to a first amendment claim of parody.

and it also must be noted that a university with the size of resources of Texas is not going to throw together a lawsuit the week after a football loss. it takes quite a long time to get together a solid complaint and they're not going to do it in a week just because they're pissed. my guess is this thing's been in the works a long time. though it does appear to be sour grapes as to the filing date.

by billyzane on Jan 22, 2007 10:11 AM CST reply actions

Article

what article in the Battilon are you referencing?

You can't spell cocksucker without OU.

by maverick76904 on Jan 22, 2007 11:00 AM CST up reply actions

it's linked from the aggie blog

http://media.www.thebatt.com/media/storage/paper657/news/2007/01/22/News/Ut.Sues.Over.SawedOff.Horns -2656939.shtml?sourcedomain=www.thebatt.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

by billyzane on Jan 22, 2007 11:04 AM CST up reply actions

It needs to be done...

...but it should have started years ago. They should have gotten their first C&D letter within a year of opening. Hell, I was under the assumption that everyone of those I saw on a truck or T represented a couple nickles/bucks droped into the Longhorn Athletic Dept. coffers.

BTW, Everyone just go ahead brace yourself for a flood of aggies, and remember the requisite "Go fuck yourself" response for the inane and flaming posts.

by Hornbud on Jan 22, 2007 10:23 AM CST reply actions

Let's not forget

The Aggies sue anyone who wants to use the term "12th man". I would think they might be a bit more understanding of UT's actions.

They love me running behind them, so I just go out there and they open those holes and I tell them, "Thank you." --Jamaal Charles 8/07/2006

by BurntMike on Jan 22, 2007 10:27 AM CST reply actions

What did we expect?

From an aggie blogger PB? I know he is a fellow blogger and with that one might expect a certain level of decorum. Let's keep in mind, he's still an aggie. Let's not expect things like serious blogging, or quelling your hatred and jeoulsy for the sake of a well rounded blog community as you do.

He may have a blog but he's still an aggie.

Street level

by UT2001 on Jan 22, 2007 10:28 AM CST reply actions

PB,

so this guy blasted on you for doing something nice for him? Nomination, you informed him, and he slapped you for it? This makes no sense....actually it makes a lot of sense...in an Aggie sort of illogical way. Tell me if I am missing something here.

by kicker @ Burnt Orange Nation on Jan 22, 2007 10:44 AM CST reply actions

Heh

No, he didn't know I nominated him. I was just annoyed that I nominated his site, then wound up being the object of his derision. The blasting of SBN as some sort of mass syndicate, too, was baseless and a gross misunderstanding of what the network is: namely, a big umbrella under which we all sit. Nothing more.

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 11:10 AM CST up reply actions

i can't find it

where is this bashing that you speak of? i could not find anything on his site, other than the 'someone was off their meds' remark. i'm not saying i doubt you, i just cannot find where it is

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 11:40 AM CST up reply actions

nevermind

i found it. don't know where that came from, but it seems way out of line. i actually appreciate the layout of your's and other's on the blog nation.

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 11:43 AM CST up reply actions

another thing

How is Sports Blog Nation a bad blog server? It looks a lot better than the shitty whatever he uses. It looks like a 5th grade web building final assignment. Plus, I like going to other SB Nation sites because they are universal in operation. I like uniformity. (Is that a word?)

by kicker @ Burnt Orange Nation on Jan 22, 2007 11:11 AM CST up reply actions

nice usage of the lingo BillyZ!

you work in the Legal field...?

I think the arguments here about legality and timing are all good, but it still feels a bit like sour grapes. I wonder if we can expect posting friends from our polar opposites from Aggieland, of course I refer to WacArnolds and Brazos. This latest bit of Aggie bafoonery would surely seem to support that there are unfortunately more 'Brazos' minded Ags out there than the enlightened WacArnold kind.

I've long ranted about the singled minded obessive nature of the Old Army Aggie fan and how its a wonder anyone at Texas A&M even remembers "Oh yeah we have our own hand sign to use and we don't have to do upside down Horns all the time..." Unfortunately, its soooo engrained in the culture you catch them flashing upside down Horns even when they are playing/losing to to other teams.

Final point, the scripture quote is even more offensive to me personally than anything else. All too typical, and proof that calling it tradition doesn't make up for what it really is: obsession and (dare I say?) borderline heresy.

by longhornJ on Jan 22, 2007 10:55 AM CST reply actions

yeah, 3rd year of law school

not that i have any expertise in the legal field as a result of it, but i've got the lingo down...

by billyzane on Jan 22, 2007 11:06 AM CST up reply actions

good luck!

well I guess we'll see less of you then as that last round of killer finals and Bar Prep begins!!!

Best of luck BZ. As a long time Paralegal the only advice I can pass along is, especially when you are clerking and in your 'baby atty' years (usually 1-3) be nice to staff and they will save your arse on many, many occassions!

by longhornJ on Jan 23, 2007 11:21 AM CST up reply actions

I come in peace

Well color me suprised to see such a topic show up. I've never even thought of copyright infringement concerning the 'saw em off' logo. I figured it was well known throughout Austin how popular the logo was at A&M, and the timing of the lawsuit has to be questioned.

Since I have no background in copyright matters, I'm not sure who has the upperhand, although it would seem to be clearly in violation of your logo's copyright. I am suprised that UT has taken action in the past against other (and much less visible) entities, yet has waited for so long to step up to the Ags - who have profited quite generously from the popular logo.

If this lawsuit were successful, how would you, as Longhorns, feel? On the one hand, you would enjoy the taste of victory of us poor Aggies; however, this could lead to a more individual identity of A&M, a change from the perceived 'little brother' status that we seem to be saddled with and you arrogant bastards (just kidding) love to throw back in our face?

I am also wondering where the author of the 12th Manchild bashed this site as well as the the blog nation. I've only seen that site in the last month so I'm not familiar with their typical behavior, but it seems out of line. Can someone point me in the direction of this bashing?

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 11:38 AM CST reply actions

Well

I think the University, if it wanted to take on this logo, should have done so long ago. It seems odd that it's been around for soooo long and they're just now getting around to it. Impossible to say, of course, but it just looks bad.

As for the BON and SBN bashing, follow the link and read the post. It's right there.

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 11:42 AM CST up reply actions

i saw it

i went back and saw it. i don't know where he is coming from, probably just the typical rivalry crap, never wanting to give the other side any credit. from what i have seen, most of the other major blogs have nothing but praise for this site, as do i. i normally wouldn't bring myself to stay in the company of so many longhorns, but the information on this site is top-notch, up to the minute, and refreshingly unbiased (or as unbiased as one could expect).

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 11:46 AM CST up reply actions

Not that big a deal

And not worth commenting on, even, normally. It just bothered me because I'd nominated Brad for an award.

It was also presented without commentary - just SBN and BON are lame. In an award post. It made me regret nominating him, as that kind of random insulting isn't helpful to anyone. It's just bashing.

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 11:50 AM CST up reply actions

i don't know what to say

you are 100% correct, and I too would probably feel bad for nominating him. This reminds me of the time that I saw Vince Young at a Houston Airport after he got back from the draft. I am no fan of the prestige he brought to your univeristy, but since my girlfriend's parents both attended UT, I almost mustered up the courage to ask him for an autograph on their behalf. I decided not too, and as my girlfriend walked past him, she gave him a simple and quite friendly "Hey Vince". Unfortunately, he didn't say anything back or even acknowledge her, simultaneously making her feel stupid and me feel real good that I didn't even attempt to talk to that damn longhorn.

But back to the original topic. It is a shame that people continually make an a$$ out of themselves when, whether they know it or not, they are representing their university to everyone else out there.

i don't know if you have talked to him or not to find out why he said that, but i think it would be beneficial to both sides to find out what his complaint was (or if he even has a substantial complaint). i think anytime you have a chance to bring to opposing sides together for peaceful, perhaps enlightening, discussions, everyone comes out a winner. and if you expose him merely as a hard-headed UT hater, then you can proudly look down upon him with pity.

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 12:08 PM CST up reply actions

We need more WacArnold Aggies

I'm sure Brad's a good guy, and I like his blog, which is why I nominated it.

I pointed it out - both in the comments of his blog, and here - because I think he is (or at least should be) above just trashing this site without any explanation. If he legitimately thinks BON sucks - fine. But to just casually toss us, and this network, under the bus struck me as petty and immature.

And I've officially spent way too many words on this.

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 12:11 PM CST up reply actions

12th manchild

here's the link: http://the12thmanchild.blogspot.com/2007/01/come-again.html
[see under "Best Big XII Blog"]

as for the case, i'm no intellectual property lawyer, but it does seem to blatantly infringe on the trademark. but at the same time, the 1st amendment claim (or the fair use claim under the Copyright Act) of parody is relevant. because the primary aim of the parody was commercial and not artistic, UT might have a good claim here.

what will probably happen is the aggie guy will file a motion for summary judgment (which is where the judge decides if there is any chance of the plaintiff (UT) winning on the merits). if the judge lets the case go to trial, there will be a settlement of some sort. there's no way this is actually going to trial unless some aggies bankroll the guy.

by billyzane on Jan 22, 2007 11:55 AM CST up reply actions

Never underestimate

the length$ and depth$ that an ag alum will plunge themselves into in the interest of harassing UT.

by Hornbud on Jan 22, 2007 12:01 PM CST up reply actions

I think I know why they waited so long..

...UT legal dept wanted to take something $ub$tantial, and thus, waited until the business was big, and wanted to take something really important from the ags.

That's the only thing I can think of anyway.

by Hornbud on Jan 22, 2007 11:44 AM CST reply actions

maybe

but i really doubt that they would allow it to happen for so long. wouldn't it be safer to stomp out the fire when the match drops instead of waiting until the flames are burning right next to the building. (i know, the analogy sucks, i doubt yall feel threatened by the logo, but you get the point)

..but what would UT have to gain. If their sole purpose of waiting was to ruin honest people's lives, you would be taking a step off the moral 'high road' that your university prides itself on. However, having no first-hand, or even second- or third-hand, knowledge of the situation, i guess it would be wrong to speculate on motives or determine who is considered the victim at this point.

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 11:54 AM CST up reply actions

Who knows?

And I didn't realize that people associated us with moral high roads, least of all Aggies. But thats ok, there's a lot I don't realize.

I agree completely, like I said earlier, they should have been notified within their first year of operation to cease and decist.

by Hornbud on Jan 22, 2007 11:59 AM CST up reply actions

Maybe i'm wrong

maybe you are no different than everyone else.

i really don't see an easy way to settle this arguement, and this will probably portray both of us, mostly us, in a negative light in the media (like we need anymore negative crap floating around the web for people to make uninformed opinions about us).

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 12:14 PM CST up reply actions

Are we arguing?

Maybe my post came off wrong? Maybe the "Moral highground" label comes from the "We're Texas, and better than you because of it" attitude we glorify around these parts??

Whatever, the crux of the issue is that we both agree that this should have been done much much earlier than now. We can discuss moral highgrounds and pompesness at a later date.

by Hornbud on Jan 22, 2007 1:33 PM CST up reply actions

no arguement here

i was only joking about the 'moral high ground' stuff.

the arguement i was refering to was the whole copyright issue. it will be interesting to see how it turns out.

by WacArnolds on Jan 22, 2007 1:43 PM CST up reply actions

i think its stupid.

what are we gonna start suing Aggie over the "horns down" gesture? The Horns make so much money on being the shit, its not worth the time to go after the Aggies for obvious penis envy- derived signage. I was thinking about making a "Saw it off" sign with a Gig Em Thumbs up hand but with the thumb sawed off and blood squirting out. Then I realized....that is stupid!

by kicker @ Burnt Orange Nation on Jan 22, 2007 12:00 PM CST reply actions

If you don't protect the trademark

(i.e. sue the beejezus out of everyone remotely infringing on it) then you will lose it. Just ask Bayer, Kleenex, and Xeorox. Bayer already lost, and Kleenex and Xeorox are constantly battling.

For example, if you worked for Xeorox, you cannot use the term "Xeorox" as a verb desicribing the action of photocopying a document (i.e. "Please xeorox this for me") It's done thousands of times a day at other places, and nobody thinks about it, but if Xeorox caves, then it'll be that much easier to lose their corporate identity.

by Hornbud on Jan 22, 2007 12:06 PM CST up reply actions

Tivo's fighting the same thing

they insist that you don't use it as a verb and instead call it a Tivo-brand DVR. once your trademark becomes so much a part of the public arena that it loses definition as a corporate trademark, it's over. you lose the trademark.

which is why there's nothing wrong with UT suing this guy. the only questionable thing is the timing.

by billyzane on Jan 22, 2007 12:21 PM CST up reply actions

I just got a chuckle...

Imagining the Ags seeking the support of the ACLU on this one. Sweet, sweet irony.

by Applewhite is my homeboy on Jan 22, 2007 12:32 PM CST reply actions

What's next?

It's lawyers with too much time on their hands. What's next? Is OU gonna sue when another Big 12 team blows a BSC bowl game?

by Fruitdog on Jan 22, 2007 1:52 PM CST reply actions

PB,

I acknowledge that you nominated him, and therefore must assume that he isn't completely idiotic but I refuse to read any blog that links to "The Battaloin" as a source of actual news.

by bamfor on Jan 22, 2007 6:30 PM CST reply actions

Lol

Fair.

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 6:36 PM CST up reply actions

It's not that they cant "Saw em Off"

it's just that they need to pay us first.

Nothings going to stop an Aggie from going into the Co-op and buying a Longhorn sticker and then "cutting" off the horns. This way, everyone wins. We get their money and envy and they get their cute phrase on the back of their maroon silverado.

by the other Andrew on Jan 22, 2007 10:40 PM CST reply actions

YES!

exactly...the answer here is that if the Aggie Outfitters benefitted financially from the use of our logo then they need to pay for it, AND continue to pay for it if they want to continue to use it.

they can profit from it, but must give their due to the source of what makes their product commercially viable. I think this would be both financially and morally acceptable mostly because it would be funny as crap to see an Ag in their shirt and say to them "Hey thanks for the $5 contribution to my school when you bought that shirt buzz head!"

by longhornJ on Jan 23, 2007 11:33 AM CST up reply actions

Texas-OU game

I've actually seen embroidered upside down longhorn hats with the little "R" for registered trademark logo at the OU game.

by the other Andrew on Jan 23, 2007 8:11 PM CST up reply actions

mea culpa

BON/PB,

as an act of contrition for my flippant remarks concerning BON and SBN, as well as the flagrant negative campaigning, i've brought myself to finally register on a SBN site.

As you admitted, you're generally pretty degrading to A&M, almost on a level to rival much of TexAgs. So that prolly fuels most of my contempt, but other than that, i have serious respect for the site/community and it really blew my mind that a nomination came from you.

As far as SBN though, I like the concept of standardizing the sports blog market and creating a trusted clearinghouse/community for CFB, but daaamn i grow weary of the same layout.

If you're interested, maybe we can do an exchange before our basketball games in the next couple of weeks.

by the12thManchild on Jan 22, 2007 11:03 PM CST reply actions

Aw, shucks

I had a feeling this would all end well.

And, truthfully, it's been nice having an A&M blog worth reading.

Happy endings for all involved. And, yeah, I'll be in touch about a hoops exchange. And thanks to Gillespie, we'll be writing to you as underdogs. Impressive.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. No ill will at all.

by Peter Bean on Jan 22, 2007 11:25 PM CST up reply actions

the batt..

bamfor..

trust me, if there had been ANY other news outlet privy to the story, i would've linked to them instead.

which is saying a lot, since i shoot for the Batt.

by the12thManchild on Jan 22, 2007 11:05 PM CST reply actions

REALLY?

So shall Ut be sued by OU for using their logo on our F**k OU t-shirts? Give it a rest already!!! If some one has any free time maybe PETA would like to be informed that Ut sells t-shirts that depict sawing off a dogs legs! Really? Really? Leave Saw Em' Off ALONE!!!!!!!

by bittertustudent on Jan 23, 2007 8:59 PM CST reply actions

Wow

Learn how to talk shit.

by Peter Bean on Jan 23, 2007 9:09 PM CST up reply actions

you dont understand

you can have "saw em off" all you want. Just pay us to use our logo.

If a shirt gets made from a vendor on the UT campus with a Longhorn logo on it, you have to pay for the royalties.

When A&M makes their cute little shirts with the Longhorn logo, sans horns, they should have to pay a royalty.

Understand bitteraggie?

by the other Andrew on Jan 23, 2007 9:51 PM CST up reply actions

Wow

Completely pathetic attempt to make an argument. Uhm, last time I checked the letters O and U were not trademarked. If, whoever made those shirts, my guess is it is not UT, used a trademarked symbol owned by OU and did not pay to use it, then yes they should be sued.
Yea, go ahead and write PETA, with your impressive argumentative skills, I am sure you could persuade them to protest the T-shirts, that once again I don't think were made by the University.

by Wells on Jan 25, 2007 11:11 AM CST up reply actions