Penn State University is taking legal action against Vintage Brands, an online retailer that sells retro-themed merchandise of various sports teams, including college sports. The Nittany Lions are not the first school to sue the company – Purdue, Stanford, UCLA, Washington and Utah, just to name a few, have all filed lawsuits against Vintage Brands. The difference is that Penn State’s case has gone to court.

  • Penn State vs. Vintage Brands, being decided by a central Pennsylvania federal jury, has the potential to create new precedent and upend trademark law when it comes to licensing merchandise.
  • Vintage Brands is 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.
  • But the university is asking the jury to make a judgment on whether the merchandiser is misleading consumers with its business model.

“This represents a massive branding and royalty issue that should be addressed,” says 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. 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.

This represents a massive branding and royalty issue that should be addressed.”

Danny Rosin, CAS

President, Brand Fuel

Ramifications For Both Sides

The jurors in the Penn State/Vintage Brands case, which selected its jury the week of November 11, are being asked to make an interpretation of the retailer’s intent, as the defendant, by the strictest definition of current law, did not necessarily violate explicit trademark law. However, those jurors will have to determine whether Vintage Brands intentionally deceived consumers by letting them believe the products were licensed by Penn State.

“You can’t take somebody else’s good name,” says David Finkelson, an attorney representing the college. “For my client, that identity, that good name, is ‘Penn State.’”

As reported by Matthew Santoni, Vintage Brands has countered this accusation by stating that the retailer’s website – the only source of the products – prominently features disclaimers that they are not sponsored by or affiliated by the teams or universities that are represented on them.

  • Though Penn State and other universities own the licensing to their current logos, Vintage Brands is printing retro logos that were affiliated with those teams long enough ago to currently be in the public domain.

By accepting the case, the court is theoretically creating a precedent on trademark issues like these, which could have considerable ramifications to consider for promo companies. If the ruling goes in Penn State’s favor, then trademark owners might claim violations of any images that trigger nostalgia or mental association to the trademarked image. The opposite verdict would potentially embolden retailers to get creative with images that might attract consumers who could be looking for products that have some sort of affiliation with the trademark owner.

“Penn State thinks it has the trademark right to control all images that simply invoke thoughts of the university,” says John T. Fetters, an attorney representing Vintage Brands. “Even though the Penn State name is there, it’s not doing trademark work. It’s about Penn State, it’s not from Penn State.”

Rosin argues that such a loophole is essentially a tool for deception.

“Vintage is, in effect, failing and breaking the rules of the college class, ‘Branding 101,’” says Rosin. “Vintage is also taking away from deserving university royalties that help invest back into programming and the support of students who need financial assistance.”

  • In opening statements, Penn State claims it will present testimony from an expert that there was a 1 in 3 chance of confusion among consumers, meaning 33% of them believed the products were licensed by Penn State.

The trial is being overseen by Chief U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann.

What’s Going To Happen?

While the trial itself is only expected to last until later this week or next week, that may not be the end of matters. Due to the implications for both sides, it is widely assumed that an appeal will be requested, regardless of verdict.

A corporate attorney who works in intellectual property told PPAI Media that the law in question is fairly complicated, and for that reason, there’s a chance the jurors could be led to believe the argument being presented by Penn State. However, the same attorney says that it is the university that is ultimately fighting an uphill battle.

RELATED: Tribute Band Merch: Sincerest Form Of Flattery Or Trademark Infringement?

“I think the law favors Vintage Brands here because Penn State has to show that people thought they were getting trademarked gear when they bought from Vintage Brands, and I think that will be hard to do.”

For his part, Rosin is willing to go out on a limb that such proof will be presented.

“I am going to wager a legitimate Penn State t-shirt that [the court] will [rule in Penn State’s favor],” Rosin says.