Spurrier building USC powerhouse

Feb 15, 2011 Full story: Augusta Chronicle 95

Bit by bit, Steve Spurrier has added pieces to South Carolina's roster and now has the kind of football team he loves to coach: One with reliable receivers, a dependable run game and a defense he can count on to get him the ball back.

Full Story

“WE FIGHT ON AND WIN!”

Since: Jul 10

San Marino, CA

#22 May 21, 2012
gamecock forever wrote:
well ct you know with all the problems that your usc has about breaking the rules of football you never seen our hismen trophy winner give back his trophy for breaking the rules
Are you talking about that one minute of South Carolina glory back in 1980? Pretty bad when Rodgers is your most noted greatest player to ever play at the University of South Carolina. Is that really ALL youve got to offer this forum? HaHaHaHaHa

TROJANS - THE ONLY USC

Since: May 12

Columbia, SC

#23 May 29, 2012
Chosen Traveler wrote:
<quoted text>Are you talking about that one minute of South Carolina glory back in 1980? Pretty bad when Rodgers is your most noted greatest player to ever play at the University of South Carolina. Is that really ALL youve got to offer this forum? HaHaHaHaHa
TROJANS - THE ONLY USC
You are misinformed about the court case, on 2 counts:

1) The court case between the Trojans and Gamecocks was about the letters 'SC',__not__'USC'
2) The court case was about graphic logos, not about the letters themselves.

In short, the Gamecocks only started using "SC" on baseball caps in 1997. The Trojans were using "SC" on baseball caps much earlier. So, Trojans won the "earliest use" arguments for "SC" logo.

BUT -- that has nothing to do with 'USC'. Since the 'U' wasn't in the logo.

The ruling states, that if Gamecocks use all three letters 'U','S', and 'C' in a logo, Gamecocks have the right.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/01/south...

So, you are exactly wrong and backwards in your analysis.

IN FACT, it gets worse for the Trojans... because this court decision cuts both ways.. Since the Gamecocks have been using 'U','S' and 'C' in our graphic logos since before the Trojans existed, the same ruling would provide precedence to disallow the Trojans from using "USC" in a graphic logo... Since South Carolina was clearly using those letters in graphic logos first.

By forcing their rights to 'SC', the Trojans may have forfeited their rights to 'USC', since the decision can be applied both ways. South Carolina could easily take the approach:

The Trojans can keep 'SC'

The Gamecocks will take 'USC' in exchange

So, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see South Carolina sue the Trojans for rights to 'USC' graphic logo, citing exactly the case they lost as the precedent that gives them clear ownership of 'USC' in graphic logos which Gamecocks published first.

Since: May 12

Columbia, SC

#24 May 29, 2012
rdhallman wrote:
<quoted text>
So, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see South Carolina sue the Trojans for rights to 'USC' graphic logo, citing exactly the case they lost as the precedent that gives them clear ownership of 'USC' in graphic logos which Gamecocks published first.
Continued...

Still... if South Carolina did pursue this course of action, it would be difficult or impossible now.. Reason is, unlike the Trojans, South Carolina has been too generous in allowing it's "USC" logo to be infringed upon by the Trojans for too long, without challenging this infringement.

This means the Trojans would probably escape infringement by citing the "Doctrine of Laches", which basically means, the Gamecocks didn't complain soon enough after they first recognized the infringement by the Trojans. In other words, the Trojans best and probably only defense for why they are allowed to use "USC" in logos, is because the Gamecocks didn't make an issue of it years ago. And given what has transpired since, we really should have.

Bottom line, it is amusing - the arrogance of (some) Trojan fans to believe they have a greater claim to the "USC" moniker, simply because there is a higher population (of foreigners) in that region of the country.

We (Gamecock nation) were here first as 'The USC'. Get over it!

“WE FIGHT ON AND WIN!”

Since: Jul 10

San Marino, CA

#25 May 29, 2012
rdhallman wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misinformed about the court case, on 2 counts:
1) The court case between the Trojans and Gamecocks was about the letters 'SC',__not__'USC'
2) The court case was about graphic logos, not about the letters themselves.
In short, the Gamecocks only started using "SC" on baseball caps in 1997. The Trojans were using "SC" on baseball caps much earlier. So, Trojans won the "earliest use" arguments for "SC" logo.
BUT -- that has nothing to do with 'USC'. Since the 'U' wasn't in the logo.
The ruling states, that if Gamecocks use all three letters 'U','S', and 'C' in a logo, Gamecocks have the right.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/01/south...
So, you are exactly wrong and backwards in your analysis.
IN FACT, it gets worse for the Trojans... because this court decision cuts both ways.. Since the Gamecocks have been using 'U','S' and 'C' in our graphic logos since before the Trojans existed, the same ruling would provide precedence to disallow the Trojans from using "USC" in a graphic logo... Since South Carolina was clearly using those letters in graphic logos first.
By forcing their rights to 'SC', the Trojans may have forfeited their rights to 'USC', since the decision can be applied both ways. South Carolina could easily take the approach:
The Trojans can keep 'SC'
The Gamecocks will take 'USC' in exchange
So, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see South Carolina sue the Trojans for rights to 'USC' graphic logo, citing exactly the case they lost as the precedent that gives them clear ownership of 'USC' in graphic logos which Gamecocks published first.
Simply put, outside of the Carolinas, the other 48 know that "USC" and "SC" mean the University Of Southern California. For anyone to think otherwise is simply isolated, backwoods rambling...

“WE FIGHT ON AND WIN!”

Since: Jul 10

San Marino, CA

#26 May 29, 2012
rdhallman wrote:
<quoted text>
Continued...
Bottom line, it is amusing - the arrogance of (some) Trojan fans to believe they have a greater claim to the "USC" moniker, simply because there is a higher population (of foreigners) in that region of the country.
Bottom line, it took two long winded, ill-informed, drawn out posts before your underlying, redneck, racist remarks came to the surface like escaping bayou swamp gas... HaHa

“GO BUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!”

Since: Dec 06

Columbus, OH

#27 May 29, 2012
Wow, does the gamecocks have a copy of Broadway Joe??? I haven't seen a booklong response since he was on here.

Since: May 12

Columbia, SC

#28 May 29, 2012
Chosen Traveler wrote:
<quoted text>two long winded, ill-informed, drawn out posts
I totally, unequivocally destroyed your "we won 'USC' in court" argument. And the best you can do is call it "ill-formed". Perhaps I was covering the material a little too fast for you... I'll slow the pace so you can keep up:

In summary,'SC' does not equal 'USC'

Get it now?
Chosen Traveler wrote:
<quoted text> redneck, racist remarks came to the surface like escaping bayou swamp gas... HaHa
You call the word "foreigners", redneck and racists?

Sorry, I wasn't aware I was debating a child who needs to brush up on his vocabulary. But just for your edification, webster defines foreigner as:

"One who is from a foreign country or place."

There is no racism implied in the word. In Spain, I'm a foreigner. Foreigner is a description of location relative to ones country of origin, and is not a racist word or sentiment. So, grapple for your phony "moral high-ground" elsewhere.
Chosen Traveler wrote:
<quoted text> Simply put, outside of the Carolinas, the other 48 know that "USC" and "SC" mean the University Of Southern California. For anyone to think otherwise is simply isolated, backwoods rambling...
Oh.. so your core argument is:

popular opinion/misconception == truth.

Are you really that naive to believe your own statements? If so, then you have too severe a handicap for me to debate you. Would be tantamount to picking on the defenseless, and I'm not a cruel person.

Since: May 12

Columbia, SC

#29 May 29, 2012
Matt from Columbus wrote:
Wow, does the gamecocks have a copy of Broadway Joe??? I haven't seen a booklong response since he was on here.
Surround the simple-minded with a blanket of logic, and watch them try to retaliate and hand-wave their way out. Usually quite amusing.

“USC=Greatest team of BCS era!”

Since: Aug 08

Burn, baby, burn!

#30 May 29, 2012
rdhallman wrote:
<quoted text>
You are misinformed about the court case, on 2 counts:
In short, the Gamecocks only started using "SC" on baseball caps in 1997. The Trojans were using "SC" on baseball caps much earlier. So, Trojans won the "earliest use" arguments for "SC" logo.
Well... not really. According to many articles about the case, South Carolina actually used the interlocking "SC" logo in the 70s & early 80s, and then abandoned it. USC has been in continuous use of the interlocking SC symbol since at least 1967.
IN FACT, it gets worse for the Trojans... because this court decision cuts both ways.. Since the Gamecocks have been using 'U','S' and 'C' in our graphic logos since before the Trojans existed, the same ruling would provide precedence to disallow the Trojans from using "USC" in a graphic logo... Since South Carolina was clearly using those letters in graphic logos first.
By forcing their rights to 'SC', the Trojans may have forfeited their rights to 'USC', since the decision can be applied both ways. South Carolina could easily take the approach:
The Trojans can keep 'SC'
The Gamecocks will take 'USC' in exchange
So, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see South Carolina sue the Trojans for rights to 'USC' graphic logo, citing exactly the case they lost as the precedent that gives them clear ownership of 'USC' in graphic logos which Gamecocks published first.
I would be surprised, considering that USC and South Carolina worked out an agreement on the use of "USC" in the 80s:
http://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/paper-t... (the last paragraph)
It looks like your analysis is a bit off. In fact, it looks like South Carolina was trying to pull a fast one, and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Historically, they went by "Carolina" or "The Gamecocks," they knew they were going to run into trouble with any attempt to trademark "USC" so they sought out an agreement with USC prior to anything. So why not do the same thing when they decided to use the interlocking "SC" symbol? Seems like they think they didn't have to. Woops...

Since: May 12

Columbia, SC

#31 May 29, 2012
CPEM wrote:
Well... not really. According to many articles about the case, South Carolina actually used the interlocking "SC" logo in the 70s & early 80s, and then abandoned it. USC has been in continuous use of the interlocking SC symbol since at least 1967.
So, what's your "not really"? Keep in mind, I corrected the record that the case was more narrowly focused and over the interlocking SC logo, not the "USC" designation as the poster was asserting. That was the main point.

So, your correction is over a minor detail which favors the Gamecocks by showing that we used the logo earlier than 1997, but still after the Trojans did. So, it is a correction that changes nothing about the chronology or the main point. So, where's the "not really" in that?
CPEM wrote:
<quoted text>
I would be surprised, considering that USC and South Carolina worked out an agreement on the use of "USC" in the 80s:

"The Gamecocks," they knew they were going to run into trouble with any attempt to trademark "USC" so they sought out an agreement with USC prior to anything.
It is this agreement in 1981 that I am referring to, when I said, South Carolina was extremely generous. South Carolina has always been referred to as USC, dating back to the "Big Thursday" events of the early 1800's. Therefore, the Trojans were more motivated than South Carolina to strike this agreement, as South Carolina is the most likely school in the country to demonstrate prior use of the trademark.

You might be able to get away with saying the schools were equally motivated, as the reciprocal text of the agreement demonstrates. But I think it is not supported by the evidence to say that a younger school has greater claim to a trademark in use before its date of establishment.

Proving that is hard, both ways. So they struck an agreement. Mutually beneficial. End of Story.
CPEM wrote:
<quoted text>
It looks like your analysis is a bit off. In fact, it looks like South Carolina was trying to pull a fast one, and got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
That doesn't make any sense. South Carolina used "super-imposed" letters, where the letters are stretched horizontally and use a different font. So, let me ask you this:

How can we create a logo with 'S' and 'C' in it that looks "more different" than that?

The logos really couldn't look more different. Who would confuse them. To me, the South Carolina logo is not interlocking, it is super-imposed, so I can't see any resemblence in the logos other than the letters 'S' and 'C' themselves.

Therefore, it seems to many South Carolina fans, as though the Trojans will sue for any logo we might come up with, if the letters 'S' and 'C' are in it - regardless of what the graphic might looks like. This is the whole reason the University of South Carolina appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court. Because to us, it seems like the courts are saying, we can't use the letters 'SC' in our graphics. To many of us Gamecocks, that is just foreign and ridiculous that the courts would agree with this.

How the courts could agree with 'no logos containing S and C' it is beyond me, considering we are South Carolina. I mean, South Carolina has been a state much longer than USC or California. It's as if we can't abbreviate our own state name without the Trojan lawyers coming after us.

:-) Maybe next, the Trojan lawyers will come after the state of South Carolina itself, and make us change our state name, since our Postal code is 'SC', and the Trojans think they own 'SC' regardless of how we write it on our envelopes.:-)

“USC=Greatest team of BCS era!”

Since: Aug 08

Burn, baby, burn!

#32 May 30, 2012
rdhallman wrote:
<quoted text>
So, what's your "not really"? So, where's the "not really" in that?
To tell you the truth, I don't remember what I was trying to do here.
It is this agreement in 1981 that I am referring to, when I said, South Carolina was extremely generous. South Carolina has always been referred to as USC, dating back to the "Big Thursday" events of the early 1800's.
According to the history on the University of South Carolina website, the school started as South Carolina College. It shut its doors in 1861, and was revived as the University of South Carolina in 1866, only to shut back down in 1877. It reopened in 1880 (same as USC) and underwent many reorganizations and status changes (from college to university and back again), until it was finally rechartered as the University of South Carolina in 1906. Considering the first mention of "University" is in 1866, I don't get how they've been referring to it as "USC" since the early 1800s.
http://www.sc.edu/universityhistory/index.sht...
That doesn't make any sense. South Carolina used "super-imposed" letters, where the letters are stretched horizontally and use a different font. So, let me ask you this:
How can we create a logo with 'S' and 'C' in it that looks "more different" than that?
Yah, me neither, but I get the argument that the casual fan wouldn't know the difference and might mistakenly purchase a South Carolina hat when they wanted to purchase a USC hat. For example, my mother has two kids who have graduated from USC, yet she would probably buy me a South Carolina hat if it was fashionable enough.
Therefore, it seems to many South Carolina fans, as though the Trojans will sue for any logo we might come up with, if the letters 'S' and 'C' are in it - regardless of what the graphic might looks like. I mean, South Carolina has been a state much longer than USC or California. It's as if we can't abbreviate our own state name without the Trojan lawyers coming after us.
:-) Maybe next, the Trojan lawyers will come after the state of South Carolina itself, and make us change our state name, since our Postal code is 'SC', and the Trojans think they own 'SC' regardless of how we write it on our envelopes.:-)
Exercising a bit of hyperbole, aren't you. Puh-leeze... the only reason why USC submitted a claim to block South Carolina was because South Carolina sought to trademark it. Again I refer you to the 1981 agreement. Obviously South Carolina knew that there was a chance that the two could be mistaken for one another, so why not seek out a similar agreement? Of course USC is going to seek legal intervention. If USC allowed South Carolina to proceed with their trademark, what would prevent South Carolina from turning around and suing USC? Furthermore, if USC allowed South Carolina, then it would open USC up for additional trademark infringement from other parties, and they could point to South Carolina as an example that USC didn't defend itself in other trademark infringements and therefore abandoned it. Unfortunately, in today's litigious society, you're either the shark or the chum.

“WE FIGHT ON AND WIN!”

Since: Jul 10

San Marino, CA

#33 May 30, 2012
rdhallman wrote:
<quoted text>
I totally, unequivocally destroyed your "we won 'USC' in court" argument. And the best you can do is call it "ill-formed". Perhaps I was covering the material a little too fast for you... I'll slow the pace so you can keep up:
In summary,'SC' does not equal 'USC'
Get it now?
<quoted text>
You call the word "foreigners", redneck and racists?
Sorry, I wasn't aware I was debating a child who needs to brush up on his vocabulary. But just for your edification, webster defines foreigner as:
"One who is from a foreign country or place."
There is no racism implied in the word. In Spain, I'm a foreigner. Foreigner is a description of location relative to ones country of origin, and is not a racist word or sentiment. So, grapple for your phony "moral high-ground" elsewhere.
<quoted text>
Oh.. so your core argument is:
popular opinion/misconception == truth.
Are you really that naive to believe your own statements? If so, then you have too severe a handicap for me to debate you. Would be tantamount to picking on the defenseless, and I'm not a cruel person.
Look buddy, just because you have a hard on over this, doesnt mean I am going to join in your redundant orgy. There is a topix poster called CPEM who has debated this with other Carolinas and rebutted everything you good ol' boys are trying to project. It is really too insignificant for me to get into and been done too many times for a late schooler like you...

Because...

SC IS USC, THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, THIRD ALL TIME IN NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIPS. YOUR SCHOOL IS A PRETENDER AND WANNABE BIG SCHOOL PROGRAM

“WE FIGHT ON AND WIN!”

Since: Jul 10

San Marino, CA

#34 May 30, 2012
CPEM wrote:
<quoted text>
To tell you the truth, I don't remember what I was trying to do here.
<quoted text>
According to the history on the University of South Carolina website, the school started as South Carolina College. It shut its doors in 1861, and was revived as the University of South Carolina in 1866, only to shut back down in 1877. It reopened in 1880 (same as USC) and underwent many reorganizations and status changes (from college to university and back again), until it was finally rechartered as the University of South Carolina in 1906. Considering the first mention of "University" is in 1866, I don't get how they've been referring to it as "USC" since the early 1800s.
http://www.sc.edu/universityhistory/index.sht...
<quoted text>
Yah, me neither, but I get the argument that the casual fan wouldn't know the difference and might mistakenly purchase a South Carolina hat when they wanted to purchase a USC hat. For example, my mother has two kids who have graduated from USC, yet she would probably buy me a South Carolina hat if it was fashionable enough.
<quoted text>
Exercising a bit of hyperbole, aren't you. Puh-leeze... the only reason why USC submitted a claim to block South Carolina was because South Carolina sought to trademark it. Again I refer you to the 1981 agreement. Obviously South Carolina knew that there was a chance that the two could be mistaken for one another, so why not seek out a similar agreement? Of course USC is going to seek legal intervention. If USC allowed South Carolina to proceed with their trademark, what would prevent South Carolina from turning around and suing USC? Furthermore, if USC allowed South Carolina, then it would open USC up for additional trademark infringement from other parties, and they could point to South Carolina as an example that USC didn't defend itself in other trademark infringements and therefore abandoned it. Unfortunately, in today's litigious society, you're either the shark or the chum.
Thanks CPEM. I responded to this guy before I even noticed you were on it.

FIGHT ON

“WE FIGHT ON AND WIN!”

Since: Jul 10

San Marino, CA

#35 May 30, 2012
rdhallman wrote:
<quoted text>
Surround the simple-minded with a blanket of logic, and watch them try to retaliate and hand-wave their way out. Usually quite amusing.
There is no simple minded here, just an educated response by fellow Trojan CPEM who turned your logic sideways and stuck it up your redneck ahss! You should probably drop the subject so you dont lag further behind (or should I say in your parts backwards)!! HaHa

“WE FIGHT ON AND WIN!”

Since: Jul 10

San Marino, CA

#36 May 30, 2012
Matt from Columbus wrote:
Wow, does the gamecocks have a copy of Broadway Joe??? I haven't seen a booklong response since he was on here.
Or he is taking a page from Fart Deco man and trying to bore us with long-winded rhetoric!!! HaHa

“USC=Greatest team of BCS era!”

Since: Aug 08

Burn, baby, burn!

#37 May 30, 2012
Chosen Traveler wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks CPEM. I responded to this guy before I even noticed you were on it.
FIGHT ON
No prob, C/T, but you have to remember, not everyone on here is as... fanatical as some of the commenters that we are used to. This guy seems ok and hasn't resorted to the lame name-calling and homophobic insults that we've become accustomed to seeing. It's refreshing to be engaged in a debate like this. So let's not go in all guns-a-blazin' on this guy, he seems alright, aside from his school affiliation.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#38 May 30, 2012
I say play it out on the field I think it would be a good game to see imo.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#39 May 30, 2012
CPEM wrote:
<quoted text>
No prob, C/T, but you have to remember, not everyone on here is as... fanatical as some of the commenters that we are used to. This guy seems ok and hasn't resorted to the lame name-calling and homophobic insults that we've become accustomed to seeing. It's refreshing to be engaged in a debate like this. So let's not go in all guns-a-blazin' on this guy, he seems alright, aside from his school affiliation.
I appreciate your knowledge of the history of the game without having to stoop to the level of name saying and I respect that.

“USC=Greatest team of BCS era!”

Since: Aug 08

Burn, baby, burn!

#40 May 30, 2012
UGA 1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate your knowledge of the history of the game without having to stoop to the level of name saying and I respect that.
Give love to get love, right?

How are your Bulldogs shaping up this year?

Since: May 12

Columbia, SC

#41 May 30, 2012
CPEM wrote:
According to the history on the University of South Carolina website, the school started as South Carolina College. It shut its doors in 1861, and was revived as the University of South Carolina in 1866
Very interesting link there, some new information I hadn't read before - thanks.. Having said that, you still can't compare a College/University that struggled to make it through the Civil War and the ugly aftermath to one that didn't. Sure the University of South Carolina underwent change during that period. The City of Columbia was burned to the ground by Sherman. My grandmother (before she died) told me horrible stories of what it was like here during that period, that her Grandmother told her. Scenes she apparently witnessed, like Sherman's troops grabbing babies from their mother's arms, throwing them in the air and catching them on their swords.. Yes, keeping the University (whose buildings were in ruins), open in the 1860's wasn't a priority during all that. I'll grant you.
Still, even the latest estimates have the University of South Carolina so named 14 years ahead of the Trojans. To deny them a clear linage based on the struggles of the period would be unfair.
CPEM wrote:
Yah, me neither, but I get the argument that the casual fan wouldn't know the difference and might mistakenly purchase a South Carolina hat when they wanted to purchase a USC hat. For example, my mother has two kids who have graduated from USC, yet she would probably buy me a South Carolina hat if it was fashionable enough.
Yeah.. there, we disagree. I just can't accept the argument, that South Carolina has no right to use the letters 'S' and 'C' in its apparels.
CPEM wrote:
Exercising a bit of hyperbole, aren't you. Puh-leeze...
Yes, just joking there about the whole postal code thing. ;-)
Anyway, there was nothing unusual here IMO. It's standard practice for Carolina to trademark its logos. And considering we are South Carolina and the logos look so completely different, I don't think they anticipated a problem.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Clemson Tigers NCAA Football Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
No. 1 Florida St survives against No. 22 Clemson Sep 22 Giusseppe 1
We have your Logo Sep '14 bobbyg43 1
2014 NFL Draft: 5 Oakland Raiders Rumors You Ne... (Apr '14) Apr '14 Reggie WTF 3
Minnesota Vikings Fans: Time To Fall In Love Wi... (Oct '13) Oct '13 Laughing Bear Fan 8
Alabama Starts No. 1 In Country (Aug '13) Aug '13 Goober Hull 12
ACC Kickoff preview: FSU expected to be underdo... (Jul '13) Jul '13 andy 1
clowny (Jul '13) Jul '13 andy 1

Clemson Tigers NCAA Football People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE