way to go ISU

[IAStubborn]

I just skimmed through the policy, and it had a lot of restrictions before the "drugs and drug paraphernalia" clause was added.

The entire banned design list:



And this clause is also in there, and I doubt it was a new one:

I think it would be fair as long as they are consistent with both sides on this issue. For example letting the "students against legalization of drugs" use the logo and not the pro crowd would be wrong. Other wise no. The college republicans and Democrats don't use the logo so I don't see why this is different.

 

[isuforlife]

I'm guessing they used the pic bc apparently some people can't spell marijuana

check your spell check ,are u a English major?

 

[GWad]

Moran

 

[Skidoosh]

Its not as simple as that. ISU is undoubtedly being discriminatory to one groups message. Just because they are not fully restricting the groups message does not mean there is not a violation of the first amendment. If you cant see that, then I dont know what to tell you.

Notice how you are the only one seriously upset about this? ISU owns that logo, they can pick and choose what they want to do with it. End of story.

 

[chuckd4735]

Notice how you are the only one seriously upset about this? ISU owns that logo, they can pick and choose what they want to do with it. End of story.

I'm barley upset about it. I could give to ***** about this group or it mission. I'm simply arguing that I think this is a freedom of speech issue. I'm in no way an expert on the matter, but to me, it seems worth the court reviewing.

ISU is not a private entity, so they cannot pick and choose who gets to use their logo.

 

[IAStubborn]

I'm barley upset about it. I could give to ***** about this group or it mission. I'm simply arguing that I think this is a freedom of speech issue. I'm in no way an expert on the matter, but to me, it seems worth the court reviewing.

ISU is not a private entity, so they cannot pick and choose who gets to use their logo.

Yes they can though and in fact have to, otherwise they are at risk of losing the trademark rights. Iowa State has never allowed trademark usage for political endeavors or advocacy unless non controversial and the institution has endorsed a position. It really is that simple. It should never have been approved in the first place, someone screwed up.

 

[chuckd4735]

Yes they can though and in fact have to, otherwise they are at risk of losing the trademark rights. Iowa State has never allowed trademark usage for political endeavors or advocacy unless non controversial and the institution has endorsed a position. It really is that simple. It should never have been approved in the first place, someone screwed up.

Straight from the article...

At issue is whether ISU, a government entity, can choose which groups are allowed to use the logo based on political or social beliefs in an effort to protect its brand. It’s a lawsuit that will balance free speech rights against trademark law, said Christopher Proskey, a Des Moines patent and intellectual property attorney.
“Somebody else is using your mark in a way that damages the image that you’re building for your trademark,â€￾ he said. “But, the other side of the coin is that governments and institutions cannot be picking favorites.â€￾

It is going to come down to a balance between the two issues. 1) Is this group hurting ISU's trademark? I would say no as all they are doing is advocating for a change in law. They are not advocating for the use of illegal drugs. 2) Is ISU singling this group out in their denial of the use. I think the facts of this case say yes. Again, Im not an attorney, and don't claim to be right, but it not as clear as "ISU can pick and choose who uses their logo". As a governmental entity, they are held to stricter standards.

 

[Skidoosh]

I'm barley upset about it. I could give to ***** about this group or it mission. I'm simply arguing that I think this is a freedom of speech issue. I'm in no way an expert on the matter, but to me, it seems worth the court reviewing.

Freedom of speech does not mean you can take someone else's property and use it in a way they do not endorse.

Take Sterling and the NBA. Was he allowed to say incredibly racist things publicly? Yes. Does that mean the NBA has to sit there and let him ruin their reputation and brand? No.

 

[cloneswereall]

Straight from the article...



It is going to come down to a balance between the two issues. 1) Is this group hurting ISU's trademark? I would say no as all they are doing is advocating for a change in law. They are not advocating for the use of illegal drugs. 2) Is ISU singling this group out in their denial of the use. I think the facts of this case say yes. Again, Im not an attorney, and don't claim to be right, but it not as clear as "ISU can pick and choose who uses their logo". As a governmental entity, they are held to stricter standards.

This is going to be hard to prove unless they allowed a group that advocates keeping the laws the same the use of their trademark while denying NORML the use of it. Also, is it discrimination if there has been no opportunity for them to equally deny use of the trademark to both sides?

 

[chuckd4735]

Freedom of speech does not mean you can take someone else's property and use it in a way they do not endorse.

Take Sterling and the NBA. Was he allowed to say incredibly racist things publicly? Yes. Does that mean the NBA has to sit there and let him ruin their reputation and brand? No.

So how does a group advocating for a change of law hurt ISU's reputation/brand? This isn't a group that is advocating for everyone to smoke pot at 4:20 each day, they are simply trying to get a law changed. I don't see how they hurt ISU's brand, and obviously ISU did not either until a group of lawmakers raised hell.

 

[chuckd4735]

This is going to be hard to prove unless they allowed a group that advocates keeping the laws the same the use of their trademark while denying NORML the use of it. Also, is it discrimination if there has been no opportunity for them to equally deny use of the trademark to both sides?

They will simply go off the facts that:

ISU allowed the use of the logo by the group.
Lawmakers raised hell.
ISU adopted a new policy which in turn denied the group the use of their logo.

Those facts may not be ISU singling this group out, but its most definitely a sticky situation that is worth the Court reviewing.

 

[cloneswereall]

So how does a group advocating for a change of law hurt ISU's reputation/brand? This isn't a group that is advocating for everyone to smoke pot at 4:20 each day, they are simply trying to get a law changed. I don't see how they hurt ISU's brand, and obviously ISU did not either until a group of lawmakers raised hell.

To be fair, it wasn't much of a hotly debated item in legislature either (prompting a review of allowing the use) until last year, either; meaning that it wasn't really much of a public policy controversy until then, either.

 

[Incyte]

Its definitely possible. If that is the case, they need to go review all uses of the trademark that they have approved. For example, the Students for Life Club uses the trademarked logo, and they also stand for a cause that Im sure ISU has never taken a position on.

I don't see anything in this picture that is tradmarked. The name "iowa state university" is not a protected mark.

 

[isuska]

I don't see anything in this picture that is tradmarked. The name "iowa state university" is not a protected mark.

except for the little TM at the end of University

 

[Incyte]

except for the little TM at the end of University

Ha, I stand corrected. Looks like the university font was used.

 

[ThatllDoCy]

D%^& Hippies.

 

[acoustimac]

The issue that the court will decide here is whether or not that selectivity can extend to preventing political advocacy based solely on the issue that the group is advocating for. Iowa State has essentially said "We don't agree with NORML's position on a particular political issue, and because of this, we are going to deny their use of our trademark - after first allowing it until political pressure caused us to change our mind." As a public university, a strong case could be made that this is improper.

Also, your point about "Allowing anyone to use it" in this context is 100% irrelevant as NORML requested permission from ISU and went through proper channels, so there isn't any issue there.

No...ISU has said that they do not let groups not use the trademarked materials, they never said they disagree with NORML's political or other viewpoints. Doesn't matter if NORML requested permission by going through proper channels. ISU said "no" and has every right to do that. They've done the same thing to dorm floors who wanted to use trademarked material in their floor signs or to others that wanted to use the material on shirts/banners. Their decision might also be based on answers NORML provided in the application process.