U[sic]GA is how it's written at Tech

In a move that seems designed specifically to highlight the absurdity of trademark law, the University of Georgia could lose its name to the UGA Foundation. It probably won't, but the name is legally registered to the UGA Foundation, which is in the process of being separated from the university.

The main reason why UGA won't lose its name is that it has been operating with it since 1785. It would be legally possible (theoretically) but completely absurd to force it to surrender the name to a newly independent UGA Foundation whose task is to raise money for the university.

The article says,

Six Atlanta lawyers who handle trademark cases told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that both the regents and the foundation could make legitimate claims to the UGA name. All declined to be named because they have clients, law partners or friends on one side or the other, the newspaper said.

But the university's rights could supersede those of the foundation's because it has used the name longer.

Despite the regents' allowing the trademark to lapse, "the university never abandoned its rights," said Tom Brooks, an intellectual property lawyer in Washington.

"Trademark rights are not dependent on registration," Brooks told the newspaper.

I'm sure that no one involved in the case on either side thinks that UGA will soon have to change its name. If the UGA Foundation changes its position and decides to sue UGA, the courts will certainly decide that UGA has properly "homesteaded" the name, and that the Foundation will have to forfeit the trademark. Is this right? I'd say that the university's claim is so justified that no legal privilege can change it.

Share this