A few days ago the Rochester Institute of Technology sent a demand to the owner of ritbook demanding that he cease using the RIT trademark. (See the letter here.) Robert Colon, the RIT Chief Legal Officer, authored the letter and claimed trademark numbers 1,716,652 and 1,705,506, saying that the use on ritbook is a violation of the Lanham Act, and RIT’s trademark rights. There’s just a few problems with his letter.
First, I invite the reader to look up the referenced trademarks. They refer only to use with education services - no mention of book sale or any brokerage function is contained in the trademark registration. A quick search of the USPTO trademark database (available at http://www.uspto.gov) shows that there are a number of “RIT” trademarks registered, ranging from software companies to clothing dye. The point I’m trying to make here is that that a trademark only covers use in a specific area of goods and services - it would, for example, be ridiculous for Microsoft to claim that due to its trademark on “Windows”, glass companies can no longer use that word for thin, transparent sheets of glass used to protect interior areas from the elements. The same idea is going on here - ritbook provides a service, targeted for RIT students, where it acts as a listing service, providing a framework for students to list and find books in a more efficient manner than posters tacked to bulletin boards. For that matter, ritbook isn’t making any money from it, which also throws the whole trademark argument off a bit. But let’s assume for now that RIT was right in enforcing its trademark.
Next is the requirements made. The demand that all references to the Rochester Institute of Technology be removed except to point out that the site is not affiliated with RIT is absolutely ridiculous. The very sections of the Lanham Act that Mr. Colon points to protect fair use of trademarks to provide a contrast - for example, the law seems clear to me that if Mr. Leville wanted to point out that ritbook can save students money in contrast to the RIT bookstore “Campus Connections”, he would be well within his rights. I am not a lawyer, so understand that’s not professional advice, but if I’m wrong, explain to me how Apple can make fun of Windows every night on national TV (”I’m a Mac.” “And I’m a PC.”, etc) and not fear trademark litigation. And the demand that “rit” be removed from the domain name is just ridiculous.
Finally, we get to the last paragraph. The letter threatens two actions if its demands are unmet. The first is legal action. This is fine - the purpose of the legal system is to resolve this type of disagreement. The second is referral to Student Conduct. There’s a problem here. Courts are held accountable, proceedings are public, defendants are given fair chance to defend themselves - if they can’t afford or find a lawyer, one will be provided for them, even - and a trial by jury may be requested. Student Conduct is the opposite of the real legal system in every way - hearings and other proceedings are private to the point where the student is not even allowed to disclose details, there is no mechanism for a jury, and not only can the student not bring a lawyer, but if they chose to bring a faculty advocate, they must choose a faculty member who is not a lawyer. This is a system that should NEVER be used when RIT has a complaint against a student, particularly a legal complaint - the student is not allowed to defend themselves properly with respect to the law, and since RIT makes the judgement, there’s no incentive not to rule in the institution’s favor no matter the facts. The threat of SC is far more terrifying than legal action - and RIT knows this.
In conclusion, I submit that this letter is a scare tactic. First demanding that the student comply with baseless demands, quoting laws that invalidate some of those very demands, and then threatening them with action they have no real defense against. Of course, it’s not just a scare tactic - I wouldn’t put it past RIT to waste tuition on suing a student in a case they’re sure to lose. After all, they’re already using it to buy the security guards new toys. And don’t forget Student Conduct - RIT is sure to win that one, no matter what the law really says.
