Penn State Secures Trademark Victory in Dispute over Vintage Merch

Do trademarks protect iconic names and imagery, or only their use as a brand identifier? This question was at the heart of a closely watched trademark trial in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, where a federal jury recently delivered a victory for universities, sports teams, and other brand owners with active licensing programs. The jury found that retailer Vintage Brand, LLC and its founder willfully infringed Pennsylvania State University’s trademarks by using historic University-related imagery on unlicensed merchandise. The jury’s verdict underscored the critical role trademarks play in protecting the value of licensing agreements and brand integrity. The case also highlighted a divergence in legal standards across jurisdictions for evaluating trademark infringement, positioning it as a potential candidate for appellate review.

Background of the Dispute

Vintage Brand is an online retailer that sells apparel and other merchandise featuring images inspired by universities and professional sports teams. The company sources public domain artwork from vintage sports memorabilia, such as tickets and pennants, and adapts it into its product designs.[1]

In 2021, Penn State filed suit against Vintage Brand, its founder and CEO Chad Hartvigson, and its affiliated distributor Sportswear, Inc., alleging that their unlicensed use of historic Penn State designs infringed the University’s registered and common law trademarks. Penn State, which has operated a formal licensing program for its trademarks since 1983, claimed that Vintage Brand’s products mislead consumers into believing they are officially licensed, thereby undermining its licensing agreements and causing reputational and economic harm.[2]

Vintage Brand countered that its designs were ornamental, intended to allow purchasers to express their support for Penn State rather than to identify the source of the merchandise. The company emphasized its reliance on public domain artwork and the disclaimers on its website and products, which clarify that the merchandise is not officially licensed by the University.[3]

In February 2024, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann denied summary judgment for both parties, leaving it to a jury to determine whether Vintage Brand’s disclaimers, public domain designs, and ornamental use of Penn State’s marks sufficiently avoid consumer confusion.[4] While Vintage Brand has faced similar lawsuits from several universities, including Purdue University, UCLA, and Baylor University, this case is the first to proceed to trial.

The Trial and Jury Verdict

The trial began on November 12, 2024, and spanned seven days, with the jury ultimately returning a verdict in favor of Penn State.[5]

• Mid-trial Developments: During the trial, Judge Brann initially granted Vintage Brand’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in part, dismissing distributor Sportswear, Inc. as a defendant after ruling that its role as a “white label” distributor did not constitute direct trademark infringement.[6] However, Penn State successfully moved for reconsideration, reinstating Sportswear as a co-defendant before the jury deliberated.[7]
• The Jury’s Findings: On November 19, 2024, the jury found that Vintage Brand, Hartvigson, and Sportswear willfully infringed Penn State’s trademarks, including the University’s name, seal, and iconic lion logos. The jury rejected Vintage Brand’s affirmative defenses, including nominative fair use and aesthetic functionality.
• Damages: The jury awarded the University $28,000 in compensatory damages, reflecting revenues from Vintage Brand’s sales of 1,269 products bearing Penn State imagery.

Diverging Legal Approaches Pave the Way for Appeal

In a related case against Vintage Brand in 2023, U.S. District Court Judge Alan Albright in Texas granted summary judgment to Baylor University, applying a “per se” analysis embraced by the Fifth Circuit that assumes consumers inherently associate university names and symbols with the institution itself.[8] Judge Brann declined to adopt this “per se” approach to infringement liability, instead applying a fact-intensive inquiry requiring proof that the use of a mark is likely to cause consumer confusion as to origin, source, approval, affiliation, or sponsorship.[9]

In his rulings, Judge Brann emphasized the unsettled nature of this question, highlighting that neither the Supreme Court nor the Third Circuit has directly addressed it.[10] This positions the case as a likely candidate for appellate review.

Looking Ahead

While the verdict closes the chapter on this trial, it may be just the beginning of a broader legal battle. Both sides face significant stakes: for Penn State, the outcome reinforces the value of its licensing program and could deter unlicensed use of its trademarks; for Vintage Brand, the decision could undermine its business model and trigger further scrutiny in ongoing disputes with other universities.

The case is poised to shape how courts approach the intersection of trademark law and ornamental use, particularly in the merchandising industry. Given the divergent legal standards applied across jurisdictions, an appeal may be likely.

We will continue to monitor developments and provide updates as the case progresses. Please contact us for further insights or to discuss how this case could affect your business operations.

[1] The Pennsylvania State University v. Vintage Brand, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 4:21-cv-01091, Order Denying Summary Judgment, ECF No. 194.

[2] Penn State v. Vintage Brand, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, ECF No. 67.

[3] Penn State v. Vintage Brand, Defendant Vintage Brand’s Answer, ECF No. 72.

[4] Penn State v. Vintage Brand, Order Denying Summary Judgment, ECF No. 194.

[5] Penn State v. Vintage Brand, Clerk’s Judgment, ECF No. 337.

[6] Penn State v. Vintage Brand, Order on Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 329.

[7] Id.

[8] Baylor University v. Vintage Brand, LLC et al., U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case No. 6:21-cv-00409, Order Granting Summary Judgment, ECF No. 110.

[9] Penn State v. Vintage Brand, Order Denying Summary Judgment, ECF No. 194.

[10] Id; Penn State v. Vintage Brand, Order Denying Penn State’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 43.