San Diego Trademark Attorney - San Diego Trademark Lawyer

San Diego - It has been a banner year for sport's stars and their trademarked catchphrases. Witnessing the popularity of trademark licensing and the tremendous opportunity to profit from marketing products with trademarked names and phrases, it seems that athletes are scrambling to find the latest popular catchphrase to trademark.

Jeremy Lin filed for Linsanity, Tim Tebow filed for Tebowing, Bryce Harper filed for "That's a Clown Question, Brow", and now basketball phenom Anthony Davis has filed for "Fear the Brow" and "Raise the Brow" for trademark protection with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Davis stated that he filed the trademark applications to ensure that no other parties would profit from the feature that has made him instantly recognizable. And although most people would not consider the possession of a uni-brow a positive attribute, the basketball star insists that it is one of his best features and he intends to profit from it.

In addition to the profits for Davis and his family from the uni-brow trend, Anthony Davis is riding a wave of popularity since he was drafted last Thursday. Known as much for his connected eyebrows as his on-the-court abilities, Davis was celebrated with top selling t-shirts sold during Wildcat games that read, "Fear the Brow".

Among his accomplishments, Davis garnered countless awards, led Kentucky to an undefeated 2011-2012 season, helped his team win the 2012 NCAA Basketball Championship and won the NCAA Tournament Outstanding Player award. The power forward and center played just one year with the Kentucky Wildcats before announcing plans to forego the remainder of his college career and become a professional.

Considering the risks and rewards, fans, coaches and sports analysts were surprised by the move. However, given the tremendous momentum of Davis' career thus far, most experts anticipate a smooth transition from college to professional player. And as a first round pick by the New Orleans Hornets, the start of the rookie's first year is highly anticipated. No information has been released yet about potential manufacturers of apparel or sports memorabilia, but given the spectacular rise to fame of the young basketball star, it is likely that the eyebrow trend will prompt successful sales of fan gear.

San Diego - This entry has been moved. To read the entry see: Orange County Trademark Attorney

San Diego - The creators of the now infamous KONY 2012 YouTube video seen around the world more than 90 million times has recently threatened the owners of Kickstriker.com with a lawsuit for infringing on multiple of its trademarks.

The KONY 2012 phenomenon as seen on Facebook, YouTube, and posters throughout the United States tugged at the heart strings of people everywhere as the creators of the video aimed to capture Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda. It has been estimated that Joseph Kony and the LRA are responsible for abducting more than 30,000 children and forcing them to murder other innocent people. The movement is also referred to as the 'Invisible Children' and supporters are able to make donations towards the cause on its website to capture Kony.

Kickstriker.com, a new website, has recently posted a video parodying KONY 2012. The website is run by three graduate students Josh Begley, Mehan Jayasuriya and James Borda who are currently enrolled in New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program. On the website, visitors are able to donate money to the KONY 2012 campaign to "hire mercenaries to hunt down Kony". The students use dark humor as a satire on military issues around the world even promising that if a donation of over $5,000 is made the person donating will receive one of Kony's teeth to commemorate their role in ending his reign of terror." The website does disclaim however that "Kickstriker is a hoax."

The Invisible Children campaign creators did not find Kickstriker's humor amusing, whatsoever. In fact, a cease and desist letter was sent to the creators of Kickstriker demanding that the use of the trademarks 'KONY 2012' and 'Invisible Children' be removed and stated "this impermissible use is a blatant and egregious infringement of Invisible Children's valuable copyright and trademark rights."

The makers of Kickstriker are enforcing their right to freedom of speech and say that they are not infringing on the trademarks. A statement from the company was made saying, "The purpose of our website, Kickstriker.com (henceforth 'Kickstriker'), is to critique a number of institutions, including Invisible Children, through the use of political satire," and "as such, while Kickstriker makes use of the trademarked terms 'Invisible Children' and 'KONY 2012,' these uses are protected under the doctrine of fair use, which allows for such uses for the purposes of criticism and commentary."

This is not the first time that San Diego based Invisible Children has been surrounded by controversy. Recently the director of the KONY 2012 video and co-creator of the campaign Jason Russell was video-taped standing naked in the streets of San Diego cussing and shouting to nearby street traffic. Russell was detained and treated for dehydration.

Hopefully, the original message of the campaign will prevail, Joseph Kony will be captured, and there will be invisible children no more.

San Diego - In an interesting twist on traditional trademark infringement cases, the Navajo Nation has recently initiated a lawsuit against popular clothing purveyor Urban Outfitters. Filed in district court in New Mexico, the case alleges trademark infringement, as well as violations of the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act. The federal Indian Arts and Crafts act is rarely seen in court, but makes it illegal for companies or individuals to sell arts and crafts in a way that would falsely suggest the products were made by Native Americans. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages and an injunction to prevent Urban Outfitters from using the Navajo name or other variations on its products.

A representative for the Navajo Nation emphatically states that the Native American tribe has no connection with Urban Outfitters, and considers the infringement violations "derogatory and scandalous." Urban Outfitters stirred up tremendous controversy when it introduced its Native American inspired line of products, which included Navajo underwear and liquor flasks. In light of the fact that the sale and consumption of alcohol is banned on the Navajo Reservation, the production and sale of the liquor flasks was particularly offensive.

Initially, the Navajo Nation sent a cease and desist letter, which compelled the retailer to remove the offending product names from its website. However, the Navajo Nation claims that the products are still being distributed through other brands owned by Urban Outfitters, as well as catalogs and retail outlets. The Philadelphia based company has stated that it has no plans to further alter its products and claims that its designs are inspired by current trends used industry wide. Urban Outfitters and other retailers have since replaced the Navajo name with the word "printed" or alternate spellings of Navajo. The Navajo Nation also disputes such items as traditionally styled beaded earrings and hacienda bags. Such products do not carry the Navajo trademarked names, but nonetheless remain demonstrative of patterns that have long been used in traditional Native American artwork and designs.

The Navajo Nation considers it's branding and trademarks some of its most valuable assets and vows to protect them to the fullest extent of the law. There are approximately 10 trademarks currently registered by the Navajo Nation including those for clothing, footwear, online retail sales, household products and textiles. Recently, the tribe forced a French company to stop using the name, "Navaho" because it was confusingly similar to the correct spelling of its tribal name.

San Diego - The fashion industry has long been rife with unauthorized copying of designs, logos and fabrics. Quite simply, it's much cheaper and easier to copy successful designs than to create new ones from scratch. Moreover, new designs come out so frequently that designers ignore most knock-off copies of their products. Lawsuits are often time-consuming and expensive. While it can be difficult for a company to copyright a design, a company can register elements of a design as a trademark. For example, the shape of a bag's flap, patterns on fabric, fabric closures or the look and feel of a strap can be registered for trademark protection with the USPTO.

Despite the prevalence of copies and the difficulty prosecuting knock-off designs, there have been a number of high profile fashion houses that have bucked the trend and taken competitors to court to protect distinctive designs. Luxury shoe designer Christian Louboutin took its rival Yves Saint Laurent to court to protect its famous red-soled shoe, Hermes sued a retailer that sold a transparent rubber version of its Birkin Bag, and most recently, Gucci took Guess to court over unauthorized use of its four distinctive logo designs.

Though the lawsuit was initiated over three years ago, a federal judge recently handed down a decision that awarded monetary damages for the unauthorized copy of design elements by Guess and its footwear licensee, Marc Fisher. Gucci was also granted an injunction to prevent the use of three of four well-known "Square G" trademarks named in the original lawsuit. The trademarks listed in the lawsuit were the green and red stripe, the interlocking "G" pattern, the square "G" and the brand name's delicate script font . In its original pleadings the Italian company asked for $120 million dollars in damages, claiming Guess's appropriation of its logos diluted its brand, confused customers and caused it to lose profits.

The case, decided in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York, primarily hinged on the use of the interlocking "G" logo on Guess handbags. The luxury design label argued that some of the Guess designs were too similar to its own to be anything less than "studied imitations". Gucci also objected to the use of its recognizable brown and beige material and design elements such as the distinctive green-red-green stripe. The $4.66 million dollar award against the Los Angeles based company, represented the profit made by all products utilizing the unauthorized logo. Despite its win, Gucci claimed that the damages awarded represent only a tiny slice of the money obtained from the wallets, belts, shoes and other items designed to mimimic it's designs. However, Judge Shira Scheindlin held that Gucci was not entitled to further damages reflecting lost sales or harm to its brand, calling its analysis for computing damages "highly speculative."

San Diego - The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued office actions recently showing that it will register the term "Linsanity" to NBA player Jeremy Lin. The catchphrase had become the source of much talk and argument in the last year. With the meteoric rise of the young player from undrafted nobody, to starter with the New York Knicks, Lin gave the fans the chance to cheer for something different and unique. However, clearly there were other people who had aspirations of capitalizing on the newest NBA catchphrase. Lin's filing came six days after a filing by a California man in early February, as well as additional filings by unrelated individuals on February 9th and 14th.

The USPTO typically grants trademark rights to users who file first. However, due to the fact that the LINSANITY trademark contains Lin's name and is a clear reference to him, the USPTO has rejected the applications filed by persons other than Jeremy Lin.

Jeremy Lin is a California native who went to Harvard University and managed to garner a contract with the Golden State Warriors after graduating in 2010. Despite not having had a scholarship or any draft prospects after graduation, Lin achieved success against all odds.

One of just a few Asian Americans in the NBA, Lin seldom saw any court time and was assigned to the NBA Development League three times in his rookie season. He was later waived by the Warriors, and then the Houston Rockets, before being picked up by a third team, the New York Knicks. Lin joined the Knicks for the 2011-2012 season, and despite playing in the Development League for a good portion of the season, ended up leading the Knicks to a surprising winning streak at the end of the season. The subsequent global following has been labeled "Linsanity" by fans and has generated much talk in the last year.

The use of trademarked terms and catchphrases in professional sports has long been a huge moneymaker for owners, players and purveyors of sporting goods. Lin's status on the court may be questionable next year, but he is still a huge draw with fans. And with the global success of Lin's shoes, jerseys, fan gear and ticket sales, "Linsanity" will undoubtedly continue, at least for a little while longer.

San Diego - While it is not surprising to see the wide variety of unique baby monikers popping up everywhere, some may see it as surprising to see that Beyonce and Jay-Z have recently trademarked their new baby's name "Blue Ivy".

On its face, one might think it seems downright crazy that someone would go to the trouble and expense of actually trying to prevent other parents from using a particular name. However, there is more to their seeming madness than meets the eye.

Though the birth of a child or a child itself would not necessarily be considered unique and original enough to necessitate trademark protection, the use of a baby's name for product branding the incentive for Trademark protection. In this case, the branding of future products is the ultimate goal Beyonce and Jay-Z had in mind. As the creators of a number of popular clothing lines and other products, both Beyonce and Jay-Z, are no strangers to the world of product branding. It is also not surprising that they would consider the birth of their first child ample inspiration for the creation of a line of clothing or other items. Born January 7th, in New York City, it is speculated that little Blue Ivy will most likely be the miniature muse for a future line of baby clothing and children's items.

So what does that mean for the average parent looking to name their child Blue Ivy or parents seeking to protect their own unique moniker? Trademarking a name obviously does not prevent other parents from using your child's name. As such, parents would only be protected from other parents trying to financially profit from the use of a registered name. For example, if you named your child Greyhound, the bus company would only have a claim if you created a rival bus company named after and based around your offspring. So those of you looking to name your baby Blue Ivy, feel free to use the name, as long as you don't plan on using the name later to start a clothing line or any other similar project for profit.

San Diego - The trademarked red wax top of Maker's Mark Distillery's bourbon is here to stay. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit released its judgment which upheld an original ruling in a trademark infringement case between Maker's Mark and Jose Cuervo International that dates back to 2003.

The 19 page opinion made by Judge Boyce Martin states, "Distillers compete intensely on flavor, but also through branding and marketing; the history of bourbon, in particular, illustrates why strong branding and differentiation is important in the distilled spirits market." This statement goes without saying that any distinct trademark that goes into the making of a product should be considered in a products marketing. This idea paid off for Maker's Mark which spends about $22 million a year in marketing its bourbon.

Maker's Mark, created in 1953, began using the red wax dripping on its bottles in 1958 when Margie Samuels experimented with the idea using her deep fryer in Loretto, Kentucky. The signature seal was trademarked in 1985. Maker's Mark filed a lawsuit to protect its trade dress in 2003 against Jose Cuervo International who was using a similar wax seal dripping on its bottles of Reserva. Cuervo's Reserva collection began selling in the United States in 2001. However, after a judge ruled that Maker's Mark had rights to the trade dress, Cuervo changed its bottles to a "straight-edged wax seal".

When the court ruled that Cuervo was infringing on Maker's Mark trademark, the famous tequila brand not only had to change the appearance of its bottles but Cuervo's affiliates were also affected. Diageo North America and Casa Cuervo of Mexico were ordered to stop using the red wax dripping as well after Maker's Mark requested an injunction against the companies. Its injunction was granted in 2010 and therefore the liquor companies were prohibited from using the red wax seal. Diageo appealed the ruling, which the Court of Appeals has recently upheld.

In a statement made by Maker's Mark Chief Operating Officer Robert Samuels, he stated that the "outcome confirming that our unique trade dress cannot be infringed is great news for fans of Maker's Mark, those who handcraft our bourbon, and those who individually dip each bottle every day." A representative of Diageo North America simply stated that the company was "disappointed with the ruling".

San Diego - High fashion apparel and accessories giant, Burberry Group, is seeking a federal court ruling that says it is not committing trademark infringement by using an image of the late actor Humphrey Bogart wearing a Burberry trench coat from the classic film "Casablanca."

The luxury fashion house, founded in England, is asking the court to declare that its use of Bogart's name and image for advertising in social media does not infringe the late actor's estate's trademark rights or rights of publicity, according to the complaint. The defendant in the complaint, Bogart, LLC, owns and manages the rights to the name, voice, signature, photograph, and likeness and all other publicity rights of the iconic actor.

Burberry contends that it licensed an image of Bogart wearing the trench coat from Corbis Images, an agency that provides commercial and editorial photography and illustrations. The image, which was from the final scene of the 1942 cult classic "Casablanca," was used in a Burberry historical timeline to demonstrate the influence of the popular brand. The company also claims that the image was not used to sell its merchandise.

"Defendant is attempting to exert and assert against Burberry rights which it does not possess," according to a statement from the complaint. Burberry also cited its reference to Humphrey Bogart in the timeline is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, prohibiting the abridging of free speech.

According to the complaint, Bogart, LLC sent Burberry a cease and desist letter last month, ordering it to stop using the image. Burberry claims that Bogart, LLC followed up to the letter by contacting the British company at least two times making "a significant monetary demand."

Bogart, who died in 1957, is regarded by the American Film Institute as the greatest male star in the history of American cinema. His trademark film persona was cemented by his performance in the still-celebrated "Casablanca," making him a cultural icon among film lovers. Bogart's portrayal in the role of Rick Blaine helped "Casablanca" win the Academy Award for best picture.

The attorney for the southern California-based Bogart, LLC did not offer any comment on the dispute.

San Diego - Our friends down under are moving toward enforcing tougher anti-smoking laws. In response, the world's big four tobacco firms head to Australian high court to protect their trademarks and logos from Australia's warnings about lung cancer and the associated disturbing images.

Beginning in December, all cigarettes sold in Australia will have to be packaged in olive-green packs with stark health warnings, graphic images, and no brand logos. The manufacturer name will only appear in small, standard font.

This move has large tobacco companies such as Phillip Morris, Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and British American Tobacco fuming, claiming that the new laws which force them to sell their products in unbranded packaging is unconstitutional because it allows the Australian government in essence to acquire their intellectual property, trademarks and logos, without any compensation.

The move by the Australian government to only permit the sale of tobacco products in the unbranded packaging is expected to influence other countries to adopt the same laws. Last week, lawmakers in New Zealand agreed to introduce all tobacco products in unbranded packages with the same warnings, based on Australia's legislation.

Acting on behalf of Japan Tobacco International, the owner of Camel and Silk cut, Gavan Griffith stated that Australia's new laws would use one hundred percent of the back of each cigarette packet and seventy percent of the front for the warnings and lung cancer images. The company's trademark Camel would be reduced to a "bare husk," according to Griffith.

"We say our trademarks are extinguished," said Griffith in court.

The tobacco giants are basing their argument on a part of the Australian constitution which states that the "acquisition of property" by the state must be on "just terms", which means that compensation must be paid.

In response to the constitutional example presented by the tobacco companies, the Australian government said that it would be inappropriate for it to compensate companies for their trademarks for requiring them to market their products in a way that would prevent damage to public health. Adding insult to injury, Australia's high court chief justice, Robert French, said that this particular case was in a "different category" because of the risk of fatal health issues caused by smoking.

Regardless of tougher anti-smoking laws and campaigns in the U.S. and Australian markets, in 2010 British American Tobacco reported an increase in profits of 5%, while Phillip Morris International, the manufacturer of the Marlboro brand, reported a 15% increase in profits last year. The increase was largely due attributed to growth in the Asian market.

San Diego - Francis Ford Coppola, the famous film director, producer, and screenwriter responsible for creating The Godfather epics, is suing the owner of a California restaurant for trademark infringement. Coppola is claiming that the owner of Tavola Italian Kitchen restaurant in Novato is infringing the Oscar-winning filmmaker's "a tavola" trademark he uses to market his own restaurants.

According to the complaint, filed by Coppola and his family trust in a San Francisco federal court, "A tavola" is a registered trademark, which in Italian means restaurant patrons aren't provided with dinner menus and instead are served family-style Italian dishes. Coppola registered "A tavola" as a trademark because it is his favorite way to enjoy a meal and he also uses it to market his eateries located at his winery in Napa Valley and in San Francisco.

Coppola's complaint states that his restaurants have used the trademark since 2008, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office issuing a registration for last year. Reportedly, the filmmaker's company had sent a cease and desist letter to Tavola Italian Kitchen asking it to stop using the name, to no avail.

The trademark infringement complaint contends that due to the close proximity between Tavola Italian Kitchen and Coppola's restaurant (within fifty miles), the defendant's use of the name will likely cause a confusion with patrons. Coppola's winery's website refers to "a tavola" to promote its casual dining venue each Tuesday night.

"We're struggling to stay alive, and now we have this, one of the biggest names in American history steps on us?" stated Anthony Pirraglia, owner of Tavola Italian Kitchen. "They don't have anything else to do? It's incredible."

Pirraglia also said he was surprised that Coppola was able to trademark the Italian term since it is so generic and widely used by restaurants all over. He added that his family chose the name for the restaurant nine months ago in an attempt to revitalize the small, flailing eatery located in a shopping mall.

"We're a small, seventy-seat restaurant in a shopping center," Pirraglia said, adding that "it's absurd" to claim that consumers would be confused that it's Francis Ford Coppola's estate.

In 2010, Coppola successfully sued a Spanish winery in Texas for trademark infringement. Casas Naveran winery in Austin was ordered to scrap its label used on its rose and white wines that Coppola alleged was a copy of the "Sofia" label he uses on wines in honor of his daughter, actress and director Sofia Coppola. Coppola was reportedly awarded undisclosed monetary damages, profits, attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

San Diego - The United States Patent and Trademark Office has recently registered the trademark "SQS" to American rocker Neil Young. The "SQS" reportedly stands for "studio quality sound."

Last year, Young issued a press release stating that he was actively pursuing a music format that provides a much richer sound experience than the common MP3 format. A statement from the press release reads:

"Young is also personally spearheading the development of Pono, a revolutionary new audio music system presenting the highest digital resolution possible, the studio quality sound that artists and producers heard when they created their original recordings. Young wants consumers to be able to take full advantage of Pono's cloud-based libraries of recordings by their favorite artists and, with Pono, enjoy a convenient music listening experience that is superior in sound quality to anything ever presented."

Neil Young's new music format will apparently use a technology similar to Direct Stream Digital (DSD). DSD uses 1-bit sampling at 2.8224 Mhz, which is sixty-four times greater than the 44.1 Khz used in CD's. With the new format, a consumer's average music file could possibly be as large as 300 MB to hold the entire set of studio sound data.

Rolling Stone Magazine recently reported that Young's Pono platform has had six trademark filings thus far, which are Ivanhoe, 21st Century Record Player, Earth Storage, Storage Shed, Thanks for Listening, and SQS. Young's SQS trademark is described as "audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances; high resolution music downloadable from the Internet; high resolution discs featuring music and video of music and artistic performances; pre-recorded digital media containing audio and video recordings featuring music and artistic performances for storage and "playback" as well as "online and retail store services featuring music and artistic performances."

Young's reasoning behind the new format was that he claimed the sound of modern music made him "angry" and stated that today's audio quality is the "worst sound we've ever had." He also stated that Apple co-founder, the late Steve Jobs, would have been able to help him preserve the sound quality of vinyl and also said that digital downloads were "degrading" the standard of audio.

San Diego - Pet food manufacturers Mars and Heinz Wattie's are taking their trademark infringement battle to a High Court in Wellington, New Zealand.

The United States-based Mars Incorporated, widely known for its candy brands, is appealing a decision by New Zealand's assistant commissioner of trademarks to reject its application to trademark the term "Advance Advanced Pet Nutrition." Mars produces well-known pet food brands such as Pedigree and Whiskas.

Mars' trademark application had been opposed by Heinz Wattie's, which owns the Chef and Champ brand, because it claimed that it had already used the unregistered trademarks "Champ Advanced Dog Nutrition" and " Advanced Dog Nutrition" in New Zealand.

The assistant trademark commissioner's decision, dated September 14, insisted that if Mars were to use the phrase from its trademark application, "it is likely that a substantial number of persons in the relevant market would be confused." Section seventeen of New Zealand's 2002 Trademark Acts states the commissioner must not register any matter as a trademark if its use is likely to deceive or cause confusion.

In addition to rejecting the Mars application, the trademark commissioner awarded Heinz Wattie's costs of $3,340.

The trademark attorney representing Mars in New Zealand contends that the Chef and Champ taglines were never registered as trademarks in the country, nor had Heinz Wattie's ever applied for their registration. He went on to say that the phrases were simply descriptive of the products and were a relatively insignificant part of the product's packaging. Instead, he claimed, pet food consumers would recognize the product by its trademarked logo, which was displayed liberally on the product's packaging.

He added that Mars was seeking a distinctive trademark because of its unique combination of "advance" and "advanced."

However, the Heinz Wattie's attorney argued that although the New Zealand company's phrase was not registered as a trademark, it has been used on the Chef and Champ packaging for over twenty years and is indeed an identifiable component to the Champ trademark.

"It is inevitable that members of the public who have seen this product on sale for ten years or longer will make a connection with that tagline...it is part of the branding," stated the Heinz Wattie's attorney.

In 2010, Mars in New Zealand earned profits of $14.8 million on sales of $193.9 million, according to the most recent financials filed with the company. Hastings, New Zealand-based Heinz Wattie's reported profits of $92.7 million on sales of $735.6 million for the year ending April 27, 2011.

San Diego - A phrase long known to the students and fans of Miami University in Ohio to describe its athletic program has now been registered as a trademark. The "Cradle of Coaches" phrase is now being recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as an official trademark, with the University having exclusive rights to it.

Bob Kurz, former Miami Sports Information Director, recalled in his 2002 book titled "Miami of Ohio, The Cradle of Coaches," how he first developed the phrase fifty-three years ago.

"Driving back to Oxford (Ohio) one Saturday night in late October (1959), the car radio was tuned to a station picking up a game from Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. LSU, coached by Paul Dietzel who was a 1948 Miami graduate, was pitted against Mississippi State as I recall. The ear-splitting noise cascading down from the stands made it hard to hear the play by play. It was college football in the South, and I think I was hearing it and feeling it for the first time. It gave me an idea."

"The next morning after church, I went to the office. That was my usual Sunday morning ritual. Perusing the Sunday papers, I jotted down the record of the Miami alumni in the college and professional ranks. Red Blaik, Miami '18, the legendary Army Coach; Weeb Ewbank, Miami '28, Baltimore Colts; Paul Brown, Miami '30, Cleveland Browns; the aforementioned Dietzel; Ara Parsehgian, Dietzel's teammate and classmate, and finally John Pont, Miami '52, and current Miami coach. I threw in Sid Gillman, the Miami coach of Dietzel, Parseghian and Pont, from the NFL."

"Here it was, more than halfway through the season, and these Miami coaches had yet to lose ten games combined. There's a story there, I said to myself, as I put a blank sheet of paper in the typewriter. And on the blank sheet of paper, citing this amazing phenomenon, I called Miami the Cradle of Coaches."

In 2004, Kurz and his wife presented the University with a generous monetary gift to build The Cradle of Coaches Plaza. This fall, a statue honoring former coach Paul Brown will be added to the already-erected statues of coaches Blaik, Ewbank, Dietzel, Parsehgian, Pont, and others.

Now that the school owns the nationwide rights to control the trademark, it may pursue licensing opportunities and will of course police the trademark in the event it is infringed.

San Diego - Months after issuing Urban Outfitters a cease and desist letter asking it to stop using the "Navajo" name on its products, American Indian tribe Navajo Nation has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the retailer.

In its lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in New Mexico, the Navajo Nation is accusing Urban Outfitters of infringing on its tribal name and violating the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Enacted in 1990, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act makes it illegal to sell arts and crafts in a manner that would suggest they are authentically made by American Indians when they are not.

The Navajo Nation owns approximately ten registered trademarks on the "Navajo" name that cover clothing, footwear, online retail sales, household products, and textiles.

Proud of its heritage and intent on protecting what it believes as its most valuable asset, Navajo Nation issued a cease and desist letter in 2011 after Urban Outfitters launched a line of Navajo-branded clothing and accessories. Specific items in the retailer's line included underwear and a liquor flask, which the tribe insisted was "derogatory and scandalous," since the sale and consumption of alcohol is forbidden on the reservation which spans parts of northeast Arizona, southeast Utah, and northwest New Mexico.

Urban Outfitters responded by removing the product names from its website, however the tribe maintains that products consisting of the Navajo name are still being sold through other company brands like Free People, in catalogs, and retail stores.

As of late last month, there were no signs of the word "Navajo" on any products at an Urban Outfitters store in Arizona, however the company's website features several pieces of jewelry labeled vintage Navajo with turquoise beads and silver. In particular, a description for a handmade cuff indicates that it was originally sold at an Indian trading post and has an etched arrow detailing with a "sterling" stamp on the back.

In an email sent last year after receiving the cease and desist letter, a spokesman for Urban Outfitters said the retailer had no plans of altering its products and defended its actions by claiming the Native American-inspired trend had been used on and off in fashion, fine art, and design for years.

The Navajo tribe has been licensing its name to other businesses in exchange for a share of their profits but insists that there are about two dozen companies that are using the Navajo name without its authorization or any reimbursement.

The Navajo Nation is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a permanent injunction barring Urban Outfitters from using the "Navajo" name or any variations on its products.