A Pennsylvania jury reached a verdict on Tuesday concerning Penn State’s lawsuit against retailer Vintage Brands, determining that Vintage Brands was guilty of infringing on the school’s trademarks by selling products with retro images associated with Penn State.

  • Vintage Brands was being sued for selling products that feature images old enough to have entered the public domain– the products do not feature images that are currently under trademark by Penn State, nor does it claim the products are affiliated or licensed by Penn State.
  • However, the jurors determined that explicitly using the Penn State name alongside old imagery associated by the school was an infringement of trademark law, as it led consumers to believe they were buying merchandise licensed by the school.
  • Vintage Brands, as well as two other defendants, are ordered to pay the university $28,000 in compensatory damages.

“Our trademarks are a direct and critical representation of the Penn State brand, and we are gratified by the jury’s decision in our favor,”  Lisa M. Powers, a Penn State representative, said to Matthew Santoni of Law360. “The university appreciates this result as it relates to the many hundreds of licensees with whom the university works and who go through the appropriate processes to use Penn State’s trademarks.”

  • In opening statements, Penn State’s attorney claimed it would prove that one out of every three consumers of Vintage Brands buying one of the products in question would be confused into thinking it was officially licensed by the university.

A New Precedent?

The verdict was considered to have considerable ramifications for either side and has now potentially created a new precedent in trademark law. Trademark owners might be more emboldened to claim violations on any images that trigger nostalgia or mental association to the trademarked image.

“This represents a massive branding and royalty issue that should be addressed,” Danny Rosin, CAS, president and co-owner of Brand Fuel – PPAI 100’s No. 46 distributor – and incoming chair of PPAI’s 2025 Board of Directors, told PPAI Media before the trial began. Rosin started in the industry as a college student selling unlicensed university t-shirts. His employer at the time was disciplined by the Collegiate Licensing Company in 1993, a learning experience that Rosin says he regrets with the benefit of hindsight.

While the burden of proof was considered an uphill climb by some experts, Rosin was willing to wager that Vintage Brands would be found guilty of infringement as he saw it as a clear attempt to skirt trademark law through loopholes.

  • It remains a possibility that legal representation for Vintage Brands appeals the verdict.