It’s common knowledge that law school is competitive, and two actual law schools are about to reveal just how much in court. The University of Houston has filed a trademark infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas over South Texas College of Law’s recent name change to Houston College of Law. According to the complaint, filed on June 27th, the public university system believes that the new name is strikingly similar to its own law school’s name, the University of Houston Law Center (also informally called Houston Law), and so are the new school colors, red and white, which are the colors the University of Houston uses, too. “STCL is attempting to associate itself with the standing and reputation of the University of Houston and the University of Houston Law Center. STCL’s actions have resulted in, and likely will result in, confusion in the market place, causing damage to UH.”
The University of Houston has several registered trademarks, which they describe in the complaint, for radio, TV and sporting events, education services at the undergraduate and graduate levels, printed materials, clothing and merchandise, and its use of the red and white color scheme. In arguing that Houston College of Law is trying to benefit from its reputation, UH dedicates a substantial portion of the suit to explaining how much more prestigious it is, like its rankings with U.S. News & World Report, Super Lawyers, National Jurist, The Houston Law Review, and more. It points out rather harshly that Houston College of Law is unranked, known as a “night school,” and has struggled to change its image.
On the claim of federal trademark infringement, the University of Houston says that Houston College of Law’s use of its new name and colors are “likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception as to origin, sponsorship or approval,” and that it has been unjustly enriched and should be disgorged of any profits. On the claim of federal false advertising, UH says that the two schools are competitors and that it is likely to be damaged by “false, misleading and inaccurate statements and omissions.” There is also a claim of federal dilution. UH says its marks are distinctive and famous and have been used in connection with its law school for a long time. “STCL’s acts have lessened the capacity of UH’s trademarks to identify and distinguish the legal education services of UH. STCL’s acts have blurred and/or tarnished the unique association that has heretofore existed between UH’s trademarks and the legal education services offered by UH.” UH wants Houston College of Law to be permanently enjoined from using all confusingly similar marks and colors and from making any misleading statements. It also wants the destruction of anything with violating marks, and treble damages.
In response to the suit, Houston College of Law released a statement asserting no wrongdoing and a willingness to prove it in court. It indicates that the name was changed to avoid confusion. It also says that UH doesn’t own the name of the city and that its school is not implying any affiliation.
Where creative minds come together
According to the Wall Street Journal, there have been other battles over law school trademarks. In 2006, California Western School of Law filed a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a partial cancellation of Elmhurst College’s registration of “What College Ought to Be” for being too similar to its “What Law School Ought to Be” slogan. In 2002, Louisiana State University sued a law student there for infringement and dilution over his LSULAW.com site.
For more on trademark infringement and dilution, follow our blog.
