Logo Use Explained

[Charlie_Sheen420]

I wasn't able to get this in before the lock, but there are some people that I wanted to explain too why the old interlocking logo will probably never be seen at State ever again. Some are under the impression that State could just ask for permission to use the logo, and Nike would give the okay to do so. Here was my response:

The Nike rep that would answer a phone call like this would laugh their ass off if it ever happened. Nike will never bend over backwards to help a school that is under contract with Adidas or any other major brand other than Nike. Nike owns the rights to that logo hence why State cannot use it. State could possibly purchase it, but I'm sure it wouldn't come cheap as it is currently being used by lower Nike schools. It is all a cost of doing business, and the higher ups at State are obviously happy with the current logo, and they don't see it worthwhile to purchase that logo because they know it won't come cheap and that is not good for business. You have to choose one or the other, you can't have both in this case due to legal reasons. The school has spent plenty of $ on the re-brand logo, so they are not going to throw all that away and spend a lot of $ on a logo to just wear once a year. If Nike didn't have the rights to the logo, you would have already probably seen it being used every once in a while for a retro look.

Let's say State did contact Nike and ask, and by some chance Nike gave the okay. How do you think Adidas would feel about all that if they found out? They would really up the shitty designs and stuff for State then because they would be pissed. It would probably break a legal agreement as well because I doubt it would be legal for State while under contract with Adidas to use anything associated with another major brand like Nike. State contacting other companies at all while under contract is probably breaking contract or legal agreements, and you better believe businesses love to sue when they know they can collect $. Like I said, it is all a cost of doing business. State is currently an Adidas school, and that logo will never be used at State as long as State is under contract with Adidas. You will have to wait until State signs a contract with Nike, if that ever happens, if you ever want to see that logo used again by State.

[curmudgeon]

You have no idea what you are talking about. To suggest that adidas would screw up our designs because we asked Nike for our old logo is idiotic.

This falls on Larry Templeton. He's the one that agreed to Nike owning a football and track-only logo for us.

[Dawg61]

I wasn't able to get this in before the lock, but there are some people that I wanted to explain too why the old interlocking logo will probably never be seen at State ever again. Some are under the impression that State could just ask for permission to use the logo, and Nike would give the okay to do so. Here was my response:

The Nike rep that would answer a phone call like this would laugh their ass off if it ever happened. Nike will never bend over backwards to help a school that is under contract with Adidas or any other major brand other than Nike. Nike owns the rights to that logo hence why State cannot use it. State could possibly purchase it, but I'm sure it wouldn't come cheap as it is currently being used by lower Nike schools. It is all a cost of doing business, and the higher ups at State are obviously happy with the current logo, and they don't see it worthwhile to purchase that logo because they know it won't come cheap and that is not good for business. You have to choose one or the other, you can't have both in this case due to legal reasons. The school has spent plenty of $ on the re-brand logo, so they are not going to throw all that away and spend a lot of $ on a logo to just wear once a year. If Nike didn't have the rights to the logo, you would have already probably seen it being used every once in a while for a retro look.

Let's say State did contact Nike and ask, and by some chance Nike gave the okay. How do you think Adidas would feel about all that if they found out? They would really up the shitty designs and stuff for State then because they would be pissed. It would probably break a legal agreement as well because I doubt it would be legal for State while under contract with Adidas to use anything associated with another major brand like Nike. State contacting other companies at all while under contract is probably breaking contract or legal agreements, and you better believe businesses love to sue when they know they can collect $. Like I said, it is all a cost of doing business. State is currently an Adidas school, and that logo will never be used at State as long as State is under contract with Adidas. You will have to wait until State signs a contract with Nike, if that ever happens, if you ever want to see that logo used again by State.

Thank you.

[ScoobaDawg]

I wasn't able to get this in before the lock, but there are some people that I wanted to explain too why the old interlocking logo will probably never be seen at State ever again. Some are under the impression that State could just ask for permission to use the logo, and Nike would give the okay to do so. Here was my response:

The Nike rep that would answer a phone call like this would laugh their ass off if it ever happened. Nike will never bend over backwards to help a school that is under contract with Adidas or any other major brand other than Nike. Nike owns the rights to that logo hence why State cannot use it. State could possibly purchase it, but I'm sure it wouldn't come cheap as it is currently being used by lower Nike schools. It is all a cost of doing business, and the higher ups at State are obviously happy with the current logo, and they don't see it worthwhile to purchase that logo because they know it won't come cheap and that is not good for business. You have to choose one or the other, you can't have both in this case due to legal reasons. The school has spent plenty of $ on the re-brand logo, so they are not going to throw all that away and spend a lot of $ on a logo to just wear once a year. If Nike didn't have the rights to the logo, you would have already probably seen it being used every once in a while for a retro look.

Let's say State did contact Nike and ask, and by some chance Nike gave the okay. How do you think Adidas would feel about all that if they found out? They would really up the shitty designs and stuff for State then because they would be pissed. It would probably break a legal agreement as well because I doubt it would be legal for State while under contract with Adidas to use anything associated with another major brand like Nike. State contacting other companies at all while under contract is probably breaking contract or legal agreements, and you better believe businesses love to sue when they know they can collect $. Like I said, it is all a cost of doing business. State is currently an Adidas school, and that logo will never be used at State as long as State is under contract with Adidas. You will have to wait until State signs a contract with Nike, if that ever happens, if you ever want to see that logo used again by State.


WINNER!!!!

[drummerdawg]

So what about the early 90's MSU helmets? I would think if our AD wanted or liked the Nike Interlocking MSU logo then they would go for the next closest thing. If everyone wants MSU on the helmets then why not?

[Coach34]

My question is- why can't we design an interlocking MSU that is similar but not exact and roll with it?

[ScoobaDawg]

So what about the early 90's MSU helmets? I would think if our AD wanted or liked the Nike Interlocking MSU logo then they would go for the next closest thing. If everyone wants MSU on the helmets then why not?

Because EVERYONE DOES NOT.
http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/DorkTowe_WallBang_1191.gif

[Negative Waves]

debuted sometime around 85-86 and was used until the 95 season. The 96-03 logo is owned by Nike. It would be nice to see that one used on a throwback uniform, but I doubt it will ever get used again. From what I heard, the reason we went to the banner logo was to emphasize the word "STATE" and to get away from being known as MSU. Some felt that using MSU would get us confused with Michigan State.

[gtowndawg]

My question is- why can't we design an interlocking MSU that is similar but not exact and roll with it?

Only because my best friend in this world is an intellectual property attorney. Trademarks, copyrights, patents. Ivy league educated guy, he knows the game.

He represents a large client that competes with Nike. I'm not going to say the client's name, but you would know them.

He's actually had lawsuits with Nike over letters. Literally, letters and how they look. While you can't trademark a letter per se, you can trademark how a letter looks. The design of that letter. I guarantee we would have to change how the interlocking MSU looked so much that it would be an abomination of what it once was. Literally not worth it, even if we did want to do it for some reason. And even if we did win it would take years of litigation to do so.

All that said, I personally have no desire to see an interlocking MSU, but I know some do. Not getting into all that, I'm just saying legally it would be very hard if they truly do own the trademark to the logo and variations of that logo.

[Dawg61]

Because EVERYONE DOES NOT.


Ok so those that don't get their way 100% of the time and we get our way 0% of the time for the last 10+ years. Seems fair.

[ScoobaDawg]

Ok so those that don't get their way 100% of the time and we get our way 0% of the time for the last 10+ years. Seems fair.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zC2aPQMkNPk/UEePhiPyh_I/AAAAAAAAAxo/bq_43wuZWKk/s1600/Lifes-Not-Fair1.png

[blacklistedbully]

Simple solution if we wanted to. Use the interlocking MSU of the early 80's. I believe Nike's version was an adaptation of that one, so I can't imagine they own the rights to a preceding design that was clearly different.

That said, I don't mind the existing one. Personally, I think the ones we sometimes use on our baseball jerseys would look great, the Smississippi ones.

[Dawg61]

Cute but the MState logo ain't that cool. It just isn't.

[BulldogBear]

debuted sometime around 85-86 and was used until the 95 season. The 96-03 logo is owned by Nike. It would be nice to see that one used on a throwback uniform, but I doubt it will ever get used again. From what I heard, the reason we went to the banner logo was to emphasize the word "STATE" and to get away from being known as MSU. Some felt that using MSU would get us confused with Michigan State.

Despite my avatar, I would actually prefer that one.

"From what I heard, the reason we went to the banner logo was to emphasize the word "STATE" and to get away from being known as MSU. Some felt that using MSU would get us confused with Michigan State."

I really hope that THIS^ was not their logic. ***Because being known as "STATE" wouldn't confuse us with anyone I'm sure.***

[esplanade91]

Notre Dame actively looks for small town Christian high schools using their logo and sends them cease and desists letters. Packers does so with the G (my high school was grandfathered).

People who think logos aren't a big deal are nuts.

[Negative Waves]

Despite my avatar, I would actually prefer that one.

"From what I heard, the reason we went to the banner logo was to emphasize the word "STATE" and to get away from being known as MSU. Some felt that using MSU would get us confused with Michigan State."

I really hope that THIS^ was not their logic. ***Because being known as "STATE" wouldn't confuse us with anyone I'm sure.***


Never underestimate the stupidity of a Larry Templeton-led athletic department. Of course, I heard that second hand that they wanted to emphasize the word STATE instead of MSU, so I am not sure of it's validity. I really would prefer being MSU than M STATE. The MSJ logo may have looked somewhat like a blob from a distance, but the M STATE banner logo doesn't look all that recognizable from a distance either. The uniforms from the 90's looked SEC, Croom's looked like a SWAC school, and now we kind of look like a Sun Belt or CUSA school. The new design is definitely a step in the right direction, but they're just not quite as good as the late 90's uniforms.

[BulldogBear]

Notre Dame actively looks for small town Christian high schools using their logo and sends them cease and desists letters. Packers does so with the G (my high school was grandfathered).

People who think logos aren't a big deal are nuts.

That got me thinking and I found this on UGA fan site:

"
In 1963 after becoming the Bulldogs' Head Football Coach, Vince Dooley redesigned the football uniform choosing a red helmet with a black "G" on a white background as the dominant feature of the new uniform for the 1964 season.

He discussed with his staff that a forward-looking "G" would be an appropriate emblem for the helmet of the Georgia team. Dooley had just hired John Donaldson, former Georgia player from 1945 to 1948, as backfield coach. John was keen on the idea of a new image and volunteered his wife, Anne, who had a BFA in commercial art from UGA to design a logo for the new Georgia helmet with the general specifications Dooley had outlined. Dooley accepted Anne's original "G" which fit his vision for a forward look to Georgia's new emblem.

Since the Georgia "G"- though different in design and color- was similar to Green Bay's "G", Coach Dooley thought it best to clear the use of Georgia's new emblem with the NFL team. Athletic Director Joel Eaves called for permission which was granted. However, since its inception in 1961, the Green Bay "G" has been redesigned several times and now looks like Georgia's original 1964 "G." Georgia is proud that the Packers apparently liked the special nuances of the Bulldogs' forward-looking "G."

Georgia's oval "G", eventually replacing Georgia's old block "G" as the official UGA symbol, has stood the test of time. It made its first appearance in the opening game in 1964 and was an immediate hit with the Georgia fans, especially after Dooley's first three teams were so successful--highlighted by the 1966 SEC Championship."

AND THIS IS ON Packers.com:

I see that the University of Georgia uses a similar 'G' logo. Who used the logo first?
The Packers 'G' logo was invented by Dad Braisher specifically for the Packers in 1961. Georgia began using a similar looking logo in 1964. According to Georgia's official website, head coach Vince Dooley "had been impressed with the look of the helmet worn by the Green Bay Packers, which featured the oval 'G' but in a different color scheme. Dooley settled on the black oval 'G' surrounded by a white oval background resting on each side of the bright red helmet. A white stripe was placed over the top." In 1996, Georgia then added a smaller black stripe inside the white stripe.

AND THIS LINK SHOWS THEY'RE ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND TELLS A LITTLE MORE:


http://www.thesportsdesignblog.com/2012/01/18/the-history-of-the-packers-g/


Gulfport (MS) High School uses it too. As does the new school at Gluckstadt, MS (Germantown High School)

[curmudgeon]

Germantown doesn't use the same G.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.5327174,-90.1044475,166m/data=!3m1!1e3

[BulldogBear]

It does seem blockier in front. I wonder if it's similar to the earlier Packer one referred to?

[curmudgeon]

No, it was designed by a student. They did a horse head as well but it was terrible and they don't use it.

[slickdawg]

This falls on Larry Templeton. He's the one that agreed to Nike owning a football and track-only logo for us.

DING DING DING !!!!

[esplanade91]

Gulfport (MS) High School uses it too. As does the new school at Gluckstadt, MS (Germantown High School)

Like I say, my high school was in before the lock.

The G, like any of Notre Dame's logos, are sought out heavily and destroyed. High schools. Imagine MSU trying to pull a fast one on NIKE of all people.

Someone on the other site once mentioned that a D2 school in the Midwest is using our baseball logo. Apparently ran into a guy wearing what he thought was an MSU hat in the airport in somewhere like St. Louis.

My point with that is I don't think it's a big deal if MSJ is used by NAIA schools in the sticks even if we somehow got it back. It's the whole "Nike owns intellectual property we want and knows they can ask any price for it" thing.

[Coach34]

Only because my best friend in this world is an intellectual property attorney. Trademarks, copyrights, patents. Ivy league educated guy, he knows the game.

He represents a large client that competes with Nike. I'm not going to say the client's name, but you would know them.

He's actually had lawsuits with Nike over letters. Literally, letters and how they look. While you can't trademark a letter per se, you can trademark how a letter looks. The design of that letter. I guarantee we would have to change how the interlocking MSU looked so much that it would be an abomination of what it once was. Literally not worth it, even if we did want to do it for some reason. And even if we did win it would take years of litigation to do so.

All that said, I personally have no desire to see an interlocking MSU, but I know some do. Not getting into all that, I'm just saying legally it would be very hard if they truly do own the trademark to the logo and variations of that logo.


Thanks for an explanation

[Todd4State]

Here's my two cents:

1. We are known as MSU. Not M-State. Despite M-State being around 10 years now, no one calls us M-State. At least not as much as they call us MSU.

2. The AD seems like they are trying to cram M-State down people's throats, and it's just not working.

3. Easy fix- get a contract with Nike. It's time to bury the hatchet over the water cooled jock straps that Oregon got to use in their game with us.

[Dawg61]

How much roughly would Nike want to sell us the rights back to that logo? I think it's way less than we are thinking it would be. Maybe just the right person rubbing elbows with the right person kinda thing.

[Todd4State]

How much roughly would Nike want to sell us the rights back to that logo? I think it's way less than we are thinking it would be. Maybe just the right person rubbing elbows with the right person kinda thing.

I wouldn't be surprised if the astronomical cost is a MSU AD made up myth to give them an easy out for the M-State logo use. It's not like every high school in America is using the interlocking MSU, so I don't see how they would stand to lose a ton by selling it.

[Dawg61]

I wouldn't be surprised if the astronomical cost is a MSU AD made up myth to give them an easy out for the M-State logo use. It's not like every high school in America is using the interlocking MSU, so I don't see how they would stand to lose a ton by selling it.

I share the same suspicion. Is it too much to ask for that logo to be put into rotation? We the MSU alumni, students and fans want it back. Again I'm not greedy and am not asking for it to be used 100% of the time unlike the MState crowd that's gotten almost 100% usage for longer than ten years straight. Spare us the BS about branding. We don't want to be MState. WE ARE MSU!! But this argument will continue. At least they got rid of the hideous Mississippi State legal banner for now. That is a huge victory!!

[PassInterference]

Larry probably needs his wife's boyfriend's permission. I'm just sayin. What a putz.

[PassInterference]

Is it too much to ask for that logo to be put into rotation?

Yes. Branding is about consistency.

[curmudgeon]

Midwestern State was the school, and they no longer use it.

http://www.txhshelmetproject.com/Colleges/TexasColleges/MidwesternState.htm

[Dawg61]

Yes. Branding is about consistency.

BS to justify using MState 100% of the time. We are MSU!! Use the logo.

[Tbonewannabe]

Here's my two cents:

1. We are known as MSU. Not M-State. Despite M-State being around 10 years now, no one calls us M-State. At least not as much as they call us MSU.

2. The AD seems like they are trying to cram M-State down people's throats, and it's just not working.

3. Easy fix- get a contract with Nike. It's time to bury the hatchet over the water cooled jock straps that Oregon got to use in their game with us.

We are more known for M State or Miss. State nationally than MSU. It just depends on if you want a regional brand or national brand. I like the M State as much as MSU, don't really care. I just want us to decide and go with it. I however hate Miss. State. I immediately think of Mistake or a feminine name. We can be known as M State since neither Michigan, Missouri or Montana has a school that has the name. It all depends on if you want a national brand.

There is a reason Ole Miss uses that name. UM is University of Michigan or Missouri both more known. Ole Miss is the reason people nationally know there is a university in Mississippi. I had a girl in California notice my shirt with the words Mississippi and University. She asked if we were also known as Ole Miss. MSU would always have people ask if you were from Michigan.

[codeDawg]

This is a ridiculous conversation. There will be a time in MSU's future when that logo becomes something we can use without tying up money and resources that are better devoted to something productive. That time is not today. There are maybe 200 MSU fans who really give a damn about this.

Is it really worth many thousands of dollars, hours of discussion, and getting Addidas to negotiate with Nike over contracts on the use of a logo that we may pull out every now and then? No. It's not.

We are already under-funded and under-staffed versus our competition. Chasing silly crap like this furthers our divide in resources without adding much value.

[Dawg61]

We are more known for M State or Miss. State nationally than MSU. It just depends on if you want a regional brand or national brand. I like the M State as much as MSU, don't really care. I just want us to decide and go with it. I however hate Miss. State. I immediately think of Mistake or a feminine name. We can be known as M State since neither Michigan, Missouri or Montana has a school that has the name. It all depends on if you want a national brand.

There is a reason Ole Miss uses that name. UM is University of Michigan or Missouri both more known. Ole Miss is the reason people nationally know there is a university in Mississippi. I had a girl in California notice my shirt with the words Mississippi and University. She asked if we were also known as Ole Miss. MSU would always have people ask if you were from Michigan.

I don't care outside of the SEC footprint that some yank in Delaware confuses us with Michigan State. Not really that bad of a school to be confused with anyways but we also shouldn't just concede MSU to Michigan State either. Does South Carolina just give USC to Southern California? Does Oklahoma State and Oregon State just concede OSU to Ohio State? No. And we shouldn't either but our Ath Dept just keeps pulling us down to Litttle Ol Mississippi State at every chance they get. They don't even realize they do it.

[BulldogBear]

We are more known for M State or Miss. State nationally than MSU. It just depends on if you want a regional brand or national brand. I like the M State as much as MSU, don't really care. I just want us to decide and go with it. I however hate Miss. State. I immediately think of Mistake or a feminine name. We can be known as M State since neither Michigan, Missouri or Montana has a school that has the name. It all depends on if you want a national brand.

There is a reason Ole Miss uses that name. UM is University of Michigan or Missouri both more known. Ole Miss is the reason people nationally know there is a university in Mississippi. I had a girl in California notice my shirt with the words Mississippi and University. She asked if we were also known as Ole Miss. MSU would always have people ask if you were from Michigan.

The thing is I can't actually say I have EVER heard anyone refer to us as M-State. I've seen it in print like in this context or website like mstateathletics.