Penn State Scores Trademark Infringement Verdict Over Legacy Sports Logos

In a decision that could have significant ramifications, particularly in the sports merchandising industry, a jury in Pennsylvania federal district court recently found that an unlicensed retailer selling clothing featuring Penn State’s legacy logos infringed the university’s trademarks.  The case is The Pennsylvania State University v. Vintage Brand LLCSportswear, Inc. d/b/a Prep Sportswear, and Chad Hartvigson, M.D. Pa., No. 21-1901 (Verdict Date November 19, 2024).  Vintage Brand is in the business of selling clothing featuring old, historic college sports logos without license from the respective schools.  Penn State, who like most large U.S. universities has a large licensing program and enjoys significant profits from merchandising, took exception to such unlicensed use and sued for trademark infringement.

The case hinged on fundamental tenets of trademark law, particularly - what is a trademark and how to consumers identify trademarks on consumer goods.  In this case, the merchandiser Vintage Brands argued that old, legacy logos (which, in some cases, differed from Penn State’s registered trademarks) emblazoned on the front of t-shirts and similar clothing items were simply ornamental or decorative, and consumers would not be likely to believe that the clothing came from Penn State simply because the logos were featured on the clothing.  Penn State, on the other hand, argued that the use of its legacy logos created the impression that the clothing was either produced by Penn State or its authorized licensee, when that was not the case.

The jury’s ruling supported Penn State’s claim that the unlicensed use of its legacy logos, regardless of ornamental placement or slight differences from Penn State’s current registered marks, constituted trademark infringement.  In other words, the use of the logos created an impression on consumers that the clothing originated from Penn State, either directly or through its authorized licensees.

This decision has potentially broad implications for trademark owners that have historical logos or images used to identify their goods or services.  This decision strengthens the control trademark owners have over their historical brands.  In the niche “nostalgia” clothing market for example, more retailers may begin seeking licenses for sales of unlicensed goods featuring unused/outdated logos rather than risking infringement claims from historical trademark owners.