The recent articles about the legal troubles Alyson Shontell and her Syracutie line face underscore serious problems with U.S. trademark laws. What started as a reasonable way for producers of goods to defend themselves against counterfeiters has become a means for organizations like Syracuse University to make money by sitting on licensing opportunities and harassing people like Shontell, whose brand names merely resemble theirs too closely. So what if the name ‘Syracutie’ is similar to the word ‘Syracuse’? It’s a clever pun. But that doesn’t automatically imply it’s official SU merchandise, so the university should have no basis whatsoever for its legal challenges to the brand unless it can prove that the Syracutie line attempts to pass itself off as official.

In the 1990s, Microsoft was prohibited from trademarking the word ‘Windows’ on the grounds that it was a noun in common use that it didn’t invent, so it wasn’t a valid claim to a brand. They had to settle for trademarking the phrase ‘Microsoft Windows’ instead. Apparently, no such regulation remains. If the words ‘Syracuse’ and ‘orange’ can be trademarked, and if trademarks are so restrictive that the mere similarity of a word is grounds for a claim of trademark infringement, then our trademark laws are in desperate need of reform. I can’t make a shirt that has the word ‘orange’ on it without the school’s permission? The city the school is named after can’t make shirts advertising itself without the school’s permission? This level of restriction in the name of protecting a brand identity is just plain insane.

Paul Wiele

Senior psychology major