Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: November 4, 2019
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comCollege football fans may have likely noticed that players from Ohio State University (“OSU”) take great pride in referring to their alma mater as “The Ohio State University.” To capitalize on that notoriety, Ohio State is seeking to register a trademark for its use of the word “THE.”

It is not completely surprising that OSU is pursuing this trademark application given that it has taken a proactive approach to protecting its intellectual property. At last count, the university has 150 trademarks in 17 different countries, including the names of football coaches Woody Hayes and Urban Meyer.
Ohio State also aggressively polices the use of its trademarks. In 2013, Ohio State sent a cease-and-desist letter to Brittney’s Cakes, alleging that the bakery infringed its marks in selling Ohio State-themed cakes. In 2014, OSU sent a cease-and-desist letter to Columbia Gas of Ohio, which used a photo of Ohio State’s student section as part of a promotion to give away OSU football tickets.
While some characterize OSU as a “bully,” the university maintains that it is simply protecting its brands. “Like other institutions, Ohio State works to vigorously protect the university’s brand and trademarks,” Chris Davey, a spokesman for the university, said in a recent statement to the Columbus Dispatch. “These assets hold significant value, which benefits our students and faculty and the broader community by supporting our core academic mission of teaching and research.”
According to Ohio State’s trademark registration application (Application No. 88571984), the university seeks to use the word “THE” primarily on t-shirts, baseball caps and hats. While OSU’s efforts to trademark such a common word has caused a lot of buzz in the media, it will be up to a USPTO trademark examination attorney to make the final call.
Under U.S. trademark law, “A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services.” The primary requirement is that the mark indicates the source of the goods in the mind of the consumer.
Common words and phrases that simply name a product are not eligible for trademark protection. However, common words that are arbitrary and not related to the product may be eligible. The classic example is that Apple Inc. can trademark the word “Apple” in reference to its products. However, a fruit business that sells apples can’t register a trademark for the name Apple because consumers would view it as merely conveying general information about the goods or services rather than as a means to identify and distinguish the applicant’s goods/services from those of others.
Because the function of a trademark is to identify a single commercial source for particular goods or services, if consumers are accustomed to seeing a term or phrase used in connection with goods or services from many different sources, it is likely that consumers would not view the matter as a source indicator for the goods or services. As described by the USPTO in its Trademark Manual of Examining Procedures, “The critical inquiry in determining whether matter functions as a trademark or service mark is how the proposed mark would be perceived by the relevant public.”
Not surprisingly, on September 11, the Trademark Office issued an office action preliminary rejecting this application on the ground that OSU’s use of the word “THE” is merely ornamental, and not an indication of source. The examiner notes that the word “THE” appears in the upper-center area in front of the shirt, and the front portion of the hat, where ornamental features typically appear. Further, the examiner opines that the large size of the word “THE” on the clothing further indicates that the word is decorative, and not a source indicator. OSU now has six months from the date of the office action to respond to and attempt to overcome this refusal.
Determining trademark eligibility can involve complex legal analysis and there are certainly a lot of grey areas. In this case, Ohio State may have the resources to take its chances with the USPTO. It is always advisable to consult with an experienced intellectual property attorney before investing significant time and resources developing a brand or logo.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!