Retail Licensing Procedures Used by Selected NCAA Division I Institutions: Implications for Licensees of Collegiate Memorabilia

Abstract

Because collegiate-logoed merchandise generates significant revenue, many vendors (licensees) are investigating the feasibility of producing collegiate memorabilia. Logo owners (institutions, bowl committees, and so forth) assume minimal commercial risks in collegiate merchandising. Most of the financial risks are assumed by licensees, who may find the collegiate licensing realm to be more imposing than suspected due to diverse licensing procedures and financial expectations of individual institutions. This study described characteristics of selected collegiate retail licensing programs and suggested implications for licensees and vendors to consider before deciding to venture into thexolle-giate memorabilia business.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

R. H.

(1995). The economic impact of licensing logos, emblems and mascots. Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport, 5(1), 28–34.

Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina v. Charles Helpingstine, 714 F. Supp. 167 (M. D. N. C. 1989).

Berg

(1993, June 20). Colleges cash in on merchandise sales. The Tampa Tribune, p. 1.

Grassmuck

(1990, February 21). Colleges fight bootleggers as sales boom for goods that bear their logos and emblems. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A35–A36.

Irwin

R. L.

(1990). Development of a collegiate trademark licensing administrative paradigm. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Greeley.

Irwin

R. L.

, & Stotlar

D. K.

(1993). Operational protocol of sport and collegiate licensing programs. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(1), 7–16.

Jones

C. B.

(1984). Champions of confusion in trademark law: Champion Products, Inc. vs. University of Pittsburgh. Journal of Law and Commerce, 4, 493–516.

Kotler

, & Armstrong

(1990). Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Krupa

(1988, December 5). Big bucks on campus: College licensors have mastered business administration. Sports, Inc., pp. 22–25.

10.

Lanham Act: 15 U.S. C. Sections 1051-1127 (1988).

11.

Meyer

J. C.

(1992). Perceptions of agencies that market collegiate emblematic merchandise toward selected factors to royalty income. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City.

12.

Mott

(1993a, February 24). Licensing idea moves forward. NCAA News, pp. 1, 26.

13.

Mott

(1993b, February 24). NCAA targets unlicensed goods. NCAA News, p. 26.

14.

Mullin

B. J.

, Hardy

, & Sutton

W. A.

(1993). Promotional licensing. In Sport marketing (pp. 203–225). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.

15.

Schinner

M. C.

(1989). Establishing a trademark licensing program: To what extent does an institution have an exclusive right in its name? Journal of College and University Law, 75(4), 405–429.

16.

University of Georgia v. Bill Lake Distributing, 756 F. 2d 1535 (11th Cir. 1985).

17.

University of Pittsburgh v. Champion Products, Inc., 566 F. Supp. 711 (W. D. Pa. 1983).

18.

Wilkinson

D. C.

(1986). Licensing and logos. In The Sport Marketing Institute (pp. 1–11). Willowdale, Ontario, Canada: Sport Marketing Institute.