ADVERTISEMENT

UT campus legal question

clob94

Well-Known Member
Aug 25, 2014
17,328
16,223
113
Please have some knowledge on the subject but I was near campus the other day and I saw a couple of guys (I think they were guys) (no I'm not being a d!ck or making a joke) who were wearing the "c0cks not glocks" tshirt.
While I find it hilarious that hot chicks are walking around campus carrying their dildo-
My question is: Can Glock just sue the ever living sh!t out if these people for wearing a Glock unlicensed shirt? You know sure as sh!t that if unlicensed longhorn stuff was being sold, there'd be burnt orange hell to pay.

Anyone?
 
These protesters are people that never has had a gun pointed at them with the intent to kill them, so they don't understand about protecting yourself and family but the Dildos, are a nice touch....


Hook'em
 
These protesters are people that never has had a gun pointed at them with the intent to kill them, so they don't understand about protecting yourself and family but the Dildos, are a nice touch....


Hook'em

I'm going out on a limb here but I would guess that most gun owners period have never had a gun pointed at them and just wish to own one just in case.

And no I'm not against concealed hand guns just think not everyone that owns a gun is due to having a gun pulled on them or mugged etc..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: swVAHorn
No I get it- all funny and giggles and what not and they don't bother me either way-

But as a business owner, I'm just curious if someone took the name of one of my patented products and started putting it on t-shirts and dildos if I could (I know I could sue) win the lawsuit hands down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bozans
No I get it- all funny and giggles and what not and they don't bother me either way-

But as a business owner, I'm just curious if someone took the name of one of my patented products and started putting it on t-shirts and dildos if I could (I know I could sue) win the lawsuit hands down.

Yeah I'm thinking there will be a cease and desist letter coming soon. I haven't seen shirts with "Cocks not Glocks" but have seen the Coexist shirts.
 
They should be at the American University in Kabul helping repel the assault teams that are trying to kill everyone... then they would understand

Hook'em
 
I heard about this protest on the radio. I am talking out of my ass on this but I would imagine the first step would be a cease and desist order
 
Doesn't seem likely to confuse the consumer (that the shirt is an 'advertisement' or communication by the trademark owner), and so may be protected under 1st amendment as a parody. However, the relevant federal case law is not completely clear cut.

Defendants in a trademark infringement or dilution claim can assert basically two types of affirmative defense: fair use or parody...

... certain parodies of trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis. For example, some courts have applied the general "likelihood of confusion" analysis, using the First Amendment as a factor in the analysis. Other courts have expressly balanced First Amendment considerations against the degree of likely confusion. Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark.

So, for example, a risqu� parody of an L.L. Bean magazine advertisement was found not to constitute infringement. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1987). Similarly, the use of a pig-like character named "Spa'am" in a Muppet movie was found not to violate Hormel's rights in the trademark "Spam." Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996). On the other hand, "Gucchie Goo" diaper bags were found not to be protected under the parody defense Gucci Shops, Inc. v. R.H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Similarly, posters bearing the logo "Enjoy Cocaine" were found to violate the rights of Coca-Cola in the slogan "Enjoy Coca-Cola" Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). Thus, although the courts recognize a parody defense, the precise contours of such a defense are difficult to outline with any precision.

harvard law link

Hook 'em
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlourBluffHorn
Glock could not sue someone for wearing the shirt, but they could attempt to shut down the manufacturer or retailer.

Hook 'em
 
Doesn't seem likely to confuse the consumer (that the shirt is an 'advertisement' or communication by the trademark owner), and so may be protected under 1st amendment as a parody. However, the relevant federal case law is not completely clear cut.

Defendants in a trademark infringement or dilution claim can assert basically two types of affirmative defense: fair use or parody...

... certain parodies of trademarks may be permissible if they are not too directly tied to commercial use. The basic idea here is that artistic and editorial parodies of trademarks serve a valuable critical function, and that this critical function is entitled to some degree of First Amendment protection. The courts have adopted different ways of incorporating such First Amendment interests into the analysis. For example, some courts have applied the general "likelihood of confusion" analysis, using the First Amendment as a factor in the analysis. Other courts have expressly balanced First Amendment considerations against the degree of likely confusion. Still other courts have held that the First Amendment effectively trumps trademark law, under certain circumstances. In general, however, the courts appear to be more sympathetic to the extent that parodies are less commercial, and less sympathetic to the extent that parodies involve commercial use of the mark.

So, for example, a risqu� parody of an L.L. Bean magazine advertisement was found not to constitute infringement. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 28 (1st Cir. 1987). Similarly, the use of a pig-like character named "Spa'am" in a Muppet movie was found not to violate Hormel's rights in the trademark "Spam." Hormel Foods Corp. v. Jim Henson Prods., 73 F.3d 497 (2d Cir. 1996). On the other hand, "Gucchie Goo" diaper bags were found not to be protected under the parody defense Gucci Shops, Inc. v. R.H. Macy & Co., 446 F. Supp. 838 (S.D.N.Y. 1977). Similarly, posters bearing the logo "Enjoy Cocaine" were found to violate the rights of Coca-Cola in the slogan "Enjoy Coca-Cola" Coca-Cola Co. v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F. Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). Thus, although the courts recognize a parody defense, the precise contours of such a defense are difficult to outline with any precision.

harvard law link

Hook 'em


And TY! for bring us up to date Horn! very intense post

Hook'em
 
Glock could not sue someone for wearing the shirt, but they could attempt to shut down the manufacturer or retailer.

Hook 'em

You can sue anyone or anything. Happens all the time.
It certainly could be quickly dismissed and I would agree that shutting down operations would be their goal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bozans
I find it funny----- not funny "ha ha" but funny like ---wtf?--- that girls are running around school with a d!ck in their hand.
Allows me to essplain-
Over the last few years there's been lots of hate pointed at young men on college campuses because of the "rape culture" on many campuses. I'm not saying it's not all warranted, most of it is-- BUT-- in my estimation, it's the penis that does the raping (usually). I get it, I get it, a woman can be raped by a guy with a cucumber--- or whatever-- but I think we all agree that if a girl screams "I WAS RAPED!", before another word comes out of her mouth to explain, most of us assume she means that some dude stuck his peen in some part of her without her permission.
With that said, here's all these females, living in a time where men are (rightly or wrongly) being put in check by the female population. (I say rightly or wrongly because the majority of men, like myself, have never touched a woman w/o her consent, BUT we get lumped in with all the other a-holes because we share the same thing)--- a c0ck. Yet here you have girls walking around with rubber c0cks. The very thing they are in upheaval about, men using their dongs in a disrespectful and illegal fashion, is now being championed OVER guns. (Which is ironic because we men often in jest refer to our privates as a gun or pistol or some other form of firing projectile device) "This is my rifle, this is my gun..."

At any rate, it makes me wonder if women, hate guns more than c0ck. Or if they are intimidated by one that's metal and one that's flesh, but not intimidated by an inanimate c0ck. Is it about control? They can control the rubber dong, but not the real thing or the gun? Is the dildo a symbol of a gun representing the fact that a man's penis is just as dangerous as a gun? OR, is this just the johnny come lately (pun intended) cause of the day that young social justice warriors gravitate to so they can seem like involved activists?

Deep thoughts, by clob handy.....
 
I find it funny----- not funny "ha ha" but funny like ---wtf?--- that girls are running around school with a d!ck in their hand.
Allows me to essplain-
Over the last few years there's been lots of hate pointed at young men on college campuses because of the "rape culture" on many campuses. I'm not saying it's not all warranted, most of it is-- BUT-- in my estimation, it's the penis that does the raping (usually). I get it, I get it, a woman can be raped by a guy with a cucumber--- or whatever-- but I think we all agree that if a girl screams "I WAS RAPED!", before another word comes out of her mouth to explain, most of us assume she means that some dude stuck his peen in some part of her without her permission.
With that said, here's all these females, living in a time where men are (rightly or wrongly) being put in check by the female population. (I say rightly or wrongly because the majority of men, like myself, have never touched a woman w/o her consent, BUT we get lumped in with all the other a-holes because we share the same thing)--- a c0ck. Yet here you have girls walking around with rubber c0cks. The very thing they are in upheaval about, men using their dongs in a disrespectful and illegal fashion, is now being championed OVER guns. (Which is ironic because we men often in jest refer to our privates as a gun or pistol or some other form of firing projectile device) "This is my rifle, this is my gun..."

At any rate, it makes me wonder if women, hate guns more than c0ck. Or if they are intimidated by one that's metal and one that's flesh, but not intimidated by an inanimate c0ck. Is it about control? They can control the rubber dong, but not the real thing or the gun? Is the dildo a symbol of a gun representing the fact that a man's penis is just as dangerous as a gun? OR, is this just the johnny come lately (pun intended) cause of the day that young social justice warriors gravitate to so they can seem like involved activists?

Deep thoughts, by clob handy.....


Deep over thinking the protest thoughts. It rhymes with Glock so I assume that's the only reason they have fake cocks. Maybe they should've done a "Nipples over Pistols" or "Buns over Guns" type of rhyme.
 
I find it funny----- not funny "ha ha" but funny like ---wtf?--- that girls are running around school with a d!ck in their hand.
Allows me to essplain-
Over the last few years there's been lots of hate pointed at young men on college campuses because of the "rape culture" on many campuses. I'm not saying it's not all warranted, most of it is-- BUT-- in my estimation, it's the penis that does the raping (usually). I get it, I get it, a woman can be raped by a guy with a cucumber--- or whatever-- but I think we all agree that if a girl screams "I WAS RAPED!", before another word comes out of her mouth to explain, most of us assume she means that some dude stuck his peen in some part of her without her permission.
With that said, here's all these females, living in a time where men are (rightly or wrongly) being put in check by the female population. (I say rightly or wrongly because the majority of men, like myself, have never touched a woman w/o her consent, BUT we get lumped in with all the other a-holes because we share the same thing)--- a c0ck. Yet here you have girls walking around with rubber c0cks. The very thing they are in upheaval about, men using their dongs in a disrespectful and illegal fashion, is now being championed OVER guns. (Which is ironic because we men often in jest refer to our privates as a gun or pistol or some other form of firing projectile device) "This is my rifle, this is my gun..."

At any rate, it makes me wonder if women, hate guns more than c0ck. Or if they are intimidated by one that's metal and one that's flesh, but not intimidated by an inanimate c0ck. Is it about control? They can control the rubber dong, but not the real thing or the gun? Is the dildo a symbol of a gun representing the fact that a man's penis is just as dangerous as a gun? OR, is this just the johnny come lately (pun intended) cause of the day that young social justice warriors gravitate to so they can seem like involved activists?

Deep thoughts, by clob handy.....


processing_zpsfhmauv60.gif



Hook'em
 
Deep over thinking the protest thoughts. It rhymes with Glock so I assume that's the only reason they have fake cocks. Maybe they should've done a "Nipples over Pistols" or "Buns over Guns" type of rhyme.
Buns over guns and all the girls wear Brazilian beach volleyball bottoms.

I fvcking LOVE IT!

Let's trademark that, hash tag the sh!t out of it and see if it sticks bro!!!!
 
Buns over guns and all the girls wear Brazilian beach volleyball bottoms.

I fvcking LOVE IT!

Let's trademark that, hash tag the sh!t out of it and see if it sticks bro!!!!

Problem is you'll have dudes doing it too! Not that anything is wrong with it just not my cup of tea.
 
Problem is you'll have dudes doing it too! Not that anything is wrong with it just not my cup of tea.
I have selective hearing and selective vision.



Girls in thong---- 20/20 vision.

Dudes in thong---- legally blind.

Unless it's Metcalf. Then I want photos for blackmail purposes.
 
Deep over thinking the protest thoughts. It rhymes with Glock so I assume that's the only reason they have fake cocks. Maybe they should've done a "Nipples over Pistols" or "Buns over Guns" type of rhyme.

No it's to point out the lunacy that carrying a dildo around in public/on campus is illegal, while having a handgun is not. Though I don't think making dildo display legal would exactly alleviate their concerns.
 
No it's to point out the lunacy that carrying a dildo around in public/on campus is illegal, while having a handgun is not. Though I don't think making dildo display legal would exactly alleviate their concerns.

Yeah I did some reading last night. I think it's funny that students are walking around with dildos strapped to their back packs.
 
They aren't using the Glock; logo, font, or any accurate drawings of Glocks so I don't see what ground Glock would have. Besides I doubt Glock would want to draw more attention to the protest when college kids will soon move on to the next cause that catches their eye. Not to mention, with how much coverage this story has received Glock has received millions in free press. Wouldn't be surprised at all if it causes a Glock sales boom like what happens everytime AR-15s come under fire.
 
Last edited:
No it's to point out the lunacy that carrying a dildo around in public/on campus is illegal, while having a handgun is not. Though I don't think making dildo display legal would exactly alleviate their concerns.
Guns have 2nd amendment protection. Maybe dildos should have 69th amendment protection. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scholz
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT