# Sorority License



## artswear (Jun 20, 2011)

If I approach a sorority with custom decorated apparel with the intent to sell directly to that particular sorority, is it necessary to have a license for that sorority? I will not be selling these on a website or in any other location, just directly to recipient.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

There is a licensing company for Greek gear. It seems counter intuitive to me that you can trade mark an ancient alphabet, but this seems to be the case.

Since it isn't (at least to my knowledge) an infringement for the chapters to order gear for themselves, then it follows that you can sell Greek to the individual Fraternities and sororities themselves.

I have done tons of fleece and polo's and so on through sales outfits in a number of shops, for numerous chapters without a problem.

Hope I didn't just muddy up the water, and this is of some use to you.


----------



## artswear (Jun 20, 2011)

Thank you, and yes your response is certainly of use to me, no waters muddied! 

Your response is exactly what I was hoping someone would say. I agree with you about the craziness of licensing the greek alphabet, but it is what it is I guess, everyone has their hand out for a buck, and licensing is big money! I haven't checked into the costs, but I know that college licenses can be quite a bit.


----------



## artswear (Jun 20, 2011)

We better not jump too quickly to the previous conclusion....I just found the following on greeklicensing.com, which handles the licensing for over 100 greek organizations... from what they say (and of course they are in the business of selling licenses), it sounds like a license is required even if its a sale between the organization and myself....

Does licensing apply for custom orders and/or if the order is placed by a chapter or member?


Yes, licensing applies whenever a commercial transaction takes place. Moreover, neither individual chapters nor members of the organization have the right to grant commercial use of the trademarks to a third party. Only the inter/national organization (headquarters) has that authority because they are the sole trademark owner.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

Oooops 

Of course that was years and years and years ago


----------



## artswear (Jun 20, 2011)

Oh of course!


----------



## bpfohler (Jun 7, 2009)

Dealing with Greek Licensing is a pain and for us not worth the paperwork.
We could sell some Greek wear and I have in the past held a contract to print several sororities. 
Unfortunately you have to pay a per piece fee ( percentage based) and file quarterly through a cumbersome system. Keeping track of the items was more of a pain than it was worth. 
I wish it we're a once a year license fee.


----------



## tfalk (Apr 3, 2008)

We're in the process of filing for a license right now. It's $20 to apply per organization, a $20/year per organization review fee and 8.5% of gross sales. The bigger expense is they require a business general liability policy naming their clients in the amount of $1M. The couple of insurance companies I checked, that's about $500/year. Finally, as stated above, quarterly filing of all sales. If you do enough business, it can be worth it. We figured we'd try it for a year and see where we end up.


----------



## artswear (Jun 20, 2011)

Oh yes, I did see the insurance policy requirement on the licensing website, that's a bit much for me. The royalties are definitely a big consideration as well. And quarterly filing seems redundant when the licensing organization can easily keep track of this themselves and with the money they charge, they should. 

Also, it seems the organization has to approve any design, and when I see that, I automatically think delays in processing. I'm sure its a great market though if you can float all of these requirements. As with any business, you have to invest to hope for a return.


----------



## TYGERON (Apr 26, 2009)

ShirlandDesign said:


> There is a licensing company for Greek gear. It seems counter intuitive to me that you can trade mark an ancient alphabet, but this seems to be the case.
> 
> Since it isn't (at least to my knowledge) an infringement for the chapters to order gear for themselves, then it follows that you can sell Greek to the individual Fraternities and sororities themselves.


 Not the alphabet that's trademarked. It's the unique arrangement/combination of the elements that represents an organization or entity that's trademarked. No different than C-O-K-E or N-I-K-E etc

And everyone is jumping onto the licensing train and even legit chapters, if licensed, have to follow the protocols of the license holder. And there's usually an approval process even if you're given art from the sorority or frat. Some bypass the process because it can be involved and tedious. 

Better check for sure before jumping out there.


----------



## tfalk (Apr 3, 2008)

artswear said:


> Is it necessary to have a license for that sorority? I will not be selling these on a website or in any other location, just directly to recipient.


BTW, the first reply to this post is absolutely incorrect. The individual chapters do not have the right to authorize you to make things on their behalf. When the chapter is created, their licensing agreement with the national organization requires them to only purchase items through licensed vendors. Just because some either don't know or chose to ignore it, you still are required to be licensed to sell their items.

As stated above, all items and designs have to be approved by the national chapter through the licensing company. You have to send them actual garments, items, etc for them to approve before you can sell them. They also have to approve every design. Not the most friendly/streamlined process I've ever seen but I guess they need to justify their overhead cost to the national organizations.... Imagine a process where every company that wants to sell a Hanes 5180 T-Shirt with their logo on it has to send a physical sample of the SAME SHIRT to them... You would think in this day and age, they should be able to approve use of the same make/model item without seeing physical samples but what do I know...


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> BTW, the first reply to this post is absolutely incorrect. The individual chapters do not have the right to authorize you to make things on their behalf. When the chapter is created, their licensing agreement with the national organization requires them to only purchase items through licensed vendors.


I'm only going to acknowledge my mistake and say Oooops ( a kind of sort of apology ) one more time, if three's not a charm any one else wishing to point out my error will just have to assume it.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> It's the unique arrangement/combination of the elements that represents an organization or entity that's trademarked. No different than C-O-K-E or N-I-K-E etc


You got me thinking Tyger, where is the line between a written word and a letter or word mark logo? Sure, Coke in a given type face in a given color scheme, but coke is also a Solid residue from roasting coal in a coke oven; used principally as a fuel and in the production of steel and formerly as a domestic fuel. So if I am an industrial producer of additives for the metal industry obviously I can offer coke for sale.

Just for the sake of clarity my exact words were " 
this seems to be the case." not an absolute statement, and so didn't deserve a absolute refutation, certainly not in an emphasis already made (more politely, and tactfully I might add) twice before. The first time in an instructional way.

I'll be curious to hear our resident trademark experts opinion on where the line is between the written word, and a letter or word mark logo.


----------



## headfirst (Jun 29, 2011)

artswear said:


> Oh yes, I did see the insurance policy requirement on the licensing website, that's a bit much for me. The royalties are definitely a big consideration as well. And quarterly filing seems redundant when the licensing organization can easily keep track of this themselves and with the money they charge, they should.
> 
> Also, it seems the organization has to approve any design, and when I see that, I automatically think delays in processing. I'm sure its a great market though if you can float all of these requirements. As with any business, you have to invest to hope for a return.


If you're selling printed or embroidered apparel already your existing insurance policy should have enough product liability coverage. Talk to your agent.

As for artwork approval the response time for each of the organizations will vary but most approve with a day or two. 

The quarterly reporting is no big deal. If your billing software can be configured to track it properly it will only take about fifteen minutes per quarter to do all of them.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> I'll be curious to hear our resident trademark experts opinion on where the line is between the written word, and a letter or word mark logo.


The line is determined by *use*.

When a word is used as a brand name for specific goods or services, it ceases to be just a written word and becomes a trademark *for those specific goods or services*.

So yes, if you are in the fuel production industry, you can use the word coke all you want to describe your goods and services. But if for some reason, you discover that the residue from your coke ovens tastes delicious when mixed with seltzer, you couldn't call your new beverage product Coke.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

So how about if the usage is purely decorative?


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

Your use or theirs?


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

Yours, if anyone asks.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

Your decorative use would infringe on their non-decorative use.


----------



## TYGERON (Apr 26, 2009)

ShirlandDesign said:


> I'm only going to acknowledge my mistake and say Oooops ( a kind of sort of apology )


Ha! Save the third "oooops" for something a bit more egregious (like forgetting an anniversary). This one wasn't that deep.
And count on further error-pointing-outs from folk much like myself, who neglect to read ahead before posting (like Patrice's much more polite and tactful post)


----------



## TYGERON (Apr 26, 2009)

kimura-mma said:


> The line is determined by *use*.


 Glad I read ahead this time. 

Though I was looking forward to making some tactless, impolite, absolute refutations


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> Your decorative use would infringe on their non-decorative use


By creating confusion about weather or not you are representing their brand?

I guess that was my point, if a brand is common enough, by granting a trademark the government has limited in a large way what should be free usage to society as a whole. 

Wanna bet most of the people sitting in judgement on that issue belonged to a fraternity or sorority. lol

Doesn't much matter, it has been sat in judgement of and adjudicated. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> Ha! Save the third "oooops" for something a bit more egregious (like forgetting an anniversary).


That brings up a good point, what qualifies as a legitimate anniversary, wedding, engagement, or secondary and tertiary anniversaries like first date, first fettuccine Alfredo, etc.


----------



## tfalk (Apr 3, 2008)

The unfortunate reality is the 'line' is drawn wherever the copyright holder wants it to be drawn and where they have deep enough pockets to try to enforce it. In cases like that, your only hope is to talk to a copyright attorney because any advice we give here is worth exactly what it cost you....

Didn't mean to seem like I was picking on you John, just wanted to add a clarification on a couple of minor points....


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> By creating confusion about weather or not you are representing their brand?


By profiting off their brand recognition.



ShirlandDesign said:


> I guess that was my point, if a brand is common enough, by granting a trademark the government has limited in a large way what should be free usage to society as a whole.


What exactly do you consider "free usage to society as a whole?" You can use the word coke all you want in free usage. Greek letters too. You just can't profit off it by using them on merchandise, because they are already owned and licensed by someone else. Oh wait, you want your t-shirt designs to be considered free usage? C'mon now, lines have to be drawn somewhere.



ShirlandDesign said:


> if a brand is common enough


The *word* may be common, but the *brand* is not.

See what I did there?

When a word becomes a brand, it gains value. No one would bother to put a common word on a t-shirt if there wasn't already a built-in recognizable value to it in the first place. Well, maybe they would. But they may not sell many of them. If the word they put on the shirt is also a brand, they would likely sell much more. That is why the brand is allowed to be protected from decorative use.



ShirlandDesign said:


> what should be free usage to society as a whole.


This is exactly why typefaces cannot be protected as IP. The alphabet is utilitarian. People create typefaces for the purpose of them being used by others. It would be hypocritical to create something for others to use, then tell people how or where they can use it.

Brand names, however, are not meant to be used by others. They are meant to be used exclusively by the brand to differentiate their goods or services.

The government allows protection for works that are meant to used exclusively. But does not allow protection for works that are meant to used by others. So the government does kinda sorta agree with you.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

tfalk said:


> The unfortunate reality is the 'line' is drawn wherever the copyright holder wants it to be drawn and where they have deep enough pockets to try to enforce it. In cases like that, your only hope is to talk to a copyright attorney because any advice we give here is worth exactly what it cost you....


Copyright will get you nowhere in a trademark discussion.


----------



## artswear (Jun 20, 2011)

headfirst said:


> If you're selling printed or embroidered apparel already your existing insurance policy should have enough product liability coverage. Talk to your agent.
> 
> .


Not necessarily if you are running a business out of your home and you haven't informed your insurance company that you are doing so. 

But even if you already have coverage through your current plan, you may still need another policy. The greek licensing website states that they must be listed as an additional insured on the policy. I have NJ Manufacturers Insurance and they don't allow "additional insured" to be named on the policy, and so unfortunately, I would need a separate policy.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> By profiting off their brand recognition.


Correct me if I'm mistaken, I was under the impression that Branding and profiting off that brand were separate issues. 

In a December 8, 2004, decision, the Supreme Court 
resolved a split in the appellate courts on the significance of 
likelihood of confusion in a fair use defense to a trademark 
infringement claim. The Court ruled that a party asserting 
the defense need not entirely negate the likelihood that 
consumers will be confused about the origin of the goods or 
services affected.



> The *word* may be common, but the *brand* is not.


Point well taken. 



> No one would bother to put a common word on a t-shirt if there wasn't already a built-in recognizable value to it in the first place.


Beg to differ, refer to the attached images.



> The government allows protection for works that are meant to used exclusively. But does not allow protection for works that are meant to used by others. So the government does kinda sorta agree with you.


Just not in this case. lol


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> Correct me if I'm mistaken, I was under the impression that Branding and profiting off that brand were separate issues.
> 
> In a December 8, 2004, decision, the Supreme Court
> resolved a split in the appellate courts on the significance of
> ...



That decision specifies likelihood of confusion during a fair use defense. Where in the Coke or Greek letter examples would someone be able to claim fair use? That's why I don't think likelihood of confusion would be the issue in using Coke on shirts. It's the illegal use of the name for profit that would bring the infringement claim.




ShirlandDesign said:


> Beg to differ, refer to the attached images.


Yes, I acknowledged that it happens. Was making a different point though.


----------



## tfalk (Apr 3, 2008)

kimura-mma said:


> Copyright will get you nowhere in a trademark discussion.


Copyright, trademark, they're all just different versions of the same problem


----------



## headfirst (Jun 29, 2011)

tfalk said:


> Copyright, trademark, they're all just different versions of the same problem


It's only a problem if you don't own the mark


----------

