Take That, USC!
Who's the real 'SC?
According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it's the University of Southern California ... not the University of South Carolina.
On Friday, the local USC won an administrative tribunal that helped define who has rights to the "SC" logo, including the interlocking version. The case originated back in 2002.
Here's some additional trivia on the ongoing battle for the "real" USC:
- The University of Southern California is also fighting a trademark battle against a high school in Utah that calls itself the USC Trojans and uses cardinal and gold as their school colors.
- Earlier this year, the USC Gamecocks altered their official school color because of similarities with the USC Trojans. Both schools used the exact same manufacturing color codes for a variant of red known here in Los Angeles as "cardinal." Though the change to another shade of red was subtle, school officials reportedly made the switch after research showed they had lost the brand identity battle in the eye of the public -- even in South Carolina.
- In recent years, the Gamecocks have been fighting another trademark battle -- trying to stop companies from making unlicensed "USC 'Cocks" merchandise. Several of those items (mainly hats) have appeared on the Los Angeles USC campus.
- The University of Southern California loathes the moniker "Southern Cal," even though it makes a limited run of "Southern Cal" branded apparel every year. The production is necessary for the school to retain its trademark and prevent anybody else from using it.
- The school color for Santa Clara University, sometimes referred to as the University of Santa Clara (USC), is also a variation of red.
- South Carolina owns www.sc.edu, Santa Clara owns www.scu.edu, and Southern California owns www.usc.edu.
- The University of Southern California has a detailed identity program described on this website.
-- Adam Rose

University of South Carolina's Director of Communications, Russ McKinney and he said that although the lawyers are still going through the 93-page ruling, it won't necessarily stop the school from using the logo on the baseball uniforms, and it perhaps won't even impede it from selling hats with the mark or collecting royalties.
The schools have been able to live-and-let-live on the "USC" designation in the past.
Posted by: Ken Corbett | August 08, 2008 at 05:47 PM
This is absolutely ridiculous. SoCal really finds this "confusing"? Different colors, different sides of the nation?
What a bunch of babies.
Posted by: Joanne | August 08, 2008 at 05:56 PM
So touchy! Where's the southern graciousness in the face of defeat? Fact is, we could buy and sell your little plantation about ten times over, and turn it back into Palmetto scrub, before you'd even know what hit you. We are such a superior institution in every facet that it would take you decades just to catch up. You are what you are, a nice regional institution, and more power to you for knowing your place in the larger scheme of things. The real USC has consistently been one of the hottest and fasted rising national universities over the past decade. Thems are the facts. And our semi pro football team owns the second largest market in the country. Eat those grits my friends. We'd burn you down like Sherman took Atlanta.
Posted by: Gen. Sherman | August 08, 2008 at 06:50 PM
Personally, I could care less what a court says...I will always wear my University of South Carolina gear that has the interlocking SC logo on it and everyone will know what team I pull for. Seriously this is a little ridiculous...doesn't California have more serious problems to deal with? I think so
Posted by: Nicole | August 08, 2008 at 06:54 PM
JUST THE FACTS! Quit the stupid stuff.
I was going to post what USC Grad said, but I'll expand.
USC:
The University of South Carolina ("USC") did not exist until 1906. Prior to that it was the South Carolina Colleges ("SCC").
The University of Southern California (USC) was established as such in 1880. I see a photo from 1894 that has "U.S.C." on a float in a parade. Also a photo from 1911 that shows a sign "USC Welcomes President Taft" hanging above his head on the building he is speaking in front of.
SC:
It would be interesting for someone to show the earliest the South Carolina Colleges used "SC".
I see a photo from 1916 that shows the interlocking "SC" on a baseball uniform for the University of Southern California.
Posted by: aero-engineer | August 08, 2008 at 08:20 PM
USC/SC is nation wide known as Souther Cal. No one disputes that. In the state of SC both Southern Cal and South Carolina both are refered to as USC/SC. Its funny you can talk football and ask who is going to win it all this year and they will say USC knowing that refers to So. Cal. and in the same conversation What do you think USC will do? We know that refers to us.
Southern Cal is by far more advanced in all areas compared to my USC but we love our school as you love yours and we do want to excell in academics and sports. We dont have a tradition like So Cal but we love and support our team. Good times or bad we sell out 80,000 plus reguardless of who we play or our win/loss record. Every season we have hopes that this year will be the year we have a break out season.
Please know if someone post something like that idiot stating sc cal is not USC know that is only a rival from a school Steve Spurrier has called "no name" only here to stir the pot. Does it really matter? Both schools share the same initals, we are on oppisite shores, we have no common opponets that I can think of and we untill now have really never been mentioned the same time together (except a couple of home and away games in the 80's.) Let us have what little tradition we do have. Thanks and good luck to the USC Trojens and the USC Gamecocks this season.
Posted by: | August 09, 2008 at 08:29 AM
The University of the Self-Centered.
The Universities of Miami and Michigan get along with both being 'UM'; same deal with Clemson and Colorado with "CU". But Southern Cal? WHINE ME A RIVER.
Both universities have those initials - both are USC's. What, do you not speak English? Have no Common Sense? Or just off-the-chart obsessed with yourselves?
The "real" USC? Go back to kindergarten if you never learned to share - and for crying out loud, we're talking about LETTERS.
I don't care what you want to call yourselves - but for crying out loud, you have to have REAL problems if you have a problem with what our state's name is because of your chest-thumping school and it's football team.
Just pathetic...
Posted by: A Boddington's in Charleston | August 10, 2008 at 03:00 AM
"Carolina's first bowl game was played in 1946."
Isn't Carolina the place where Michael Jordan once played basketball & helped earn his team a national championship?
Posted by: football fan | August 10, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Seriously everyone, let's all get a life and stop this nonsense.
Fight On! to the University of Southern California and Good Luck to the University of South Carolina, may we both have wonderful seasons this year.
Posted by: JT4SC | August 10, 2008 at 02:05 PM
Really who cares about this stuff and I thought most usc people don't like to be called sc
Posted by: pk-in-the-mesa | August 10, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Either way you can't spell SUCKS without USC.
Posted by: | August 11, 2008 at 02:00 PM
i've always thought of that South California team out there on the left coast as USC or Southern Cal and South Carolina as SC or Cocks.
their all-time record against each other is 1-1 so i say play one more, winner takes the alphabet and that ugly red color ya'll both use.
Posted by: Mr. Hoople | August 12, 2008 at 05:29 AM
Unfortunately, most people on both sides are missing the point entirely.
Southern California was granted a trademark on the interlocking SC logo. One of the responsibilities of being a trademark holder is that you *must* defend the trademark. If someone violates the trademark and you don't defend it, you lose the right to defend it in the future.
As a result, when South Carolina applied for the trademark on their interlocking SC logo (which is admittedly significantly different from Southern California's), Southern California had no choice but to oppose the application.
The problem is one caused by the system, not by Southern California.
Topher
P.S. Southern California's "cardinal" and South Carolina's "garnet" are the exact same Pantone shade of red (which also happens to be the same shade as Alabama's "crimson"). Call it what you want, but it's really the same color.
Posted by: Topher Kersting | August 12, 2008 at 10:00 AM
Ignorant folks from California are actually no better than ignorant folks from SC. From an outsider, I think USC has been mostly recognized with Southern Cal. But I think most people associates SC as the state South Carolina. I can't imagine how a private institution in the ghetto part of a city can challenge a public flag ship institution of a state that uses SC since 1710 and also a founding member of this nation. From what I have read, there were more battles in SC than any other 13 states during the Revolutionary War and Charleston certainly has centuries of traditions that were part of the earliest American historical roots compared to a fictional Trojan that is more associated to Hollywood. As a history buff, when I hear the Carolina Gamecock, I automatically think of General Thomas Sumter who fought the British. When I hear Trojans, I think of Brad Pitt. I wasn't born in this country and I'm just an outside observer. But the private institution called Southtern Cal should not even start comparing REAL traditions with SC. To do so would be pretty ignorant to all the events that have taken place in SC for the past 300+ years.
Posted by: Tom | August 13, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Ludicrous..."SC" is a state abbreviation. I think a rivalrly game should be set up in each sport. A battle for the name, every year....makes for good television.
Posted by: rooksax3 | August 13, 2008 at 08:31 PM
This is ridiculous, I'm tired of the "redneck" comments. South Carolina is a great university- certainly not second or third rate...I can't comment on Southern Cal. - never been there! But I will leave this argument by saying, while I do find this wrong as a Gamecock but I'll have a little faith that the court system will come to a legitimate conclusion on the subject.
Please do not follow this post up with the always anticipated and never clever rebuttal slamming the other school again. It's old.
Posted by: GameCockAlumni | August 14, 2008 at 12:59 PM
As Topher explained, trademark holders are obligated to protect their marks. South Carolina discountinued use of the SC logo for 15 years (1982-1997). They have nobody to blame but themselves.
Posted by: methomps | August 14, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Too bad you hillbillys werent smart enough to trademark that name you feel entitled too. Finders keepers baby!
Posted by: dick | August 27, 2008 at 10:21 PM
ask random people across the us what they think when they see "SC", they will say south carolina, because its the states abbr. for cryin out loud. but honestly WHO CARES?!
Posted by: darednek | August 29, 2008 at 06:38 PM
What me worry? I went to UW! You know, the one on a lakeshore in a northern state with a furry carnivorous mammal for a mascot.
Posted by: Ken A | September 02, 2008 at 08:59 AM
Well if you take a look back you will see that in football the series is tied up so until we have a rematch you can't say whos better.
And maybe yall should try to catch up with UCLA in total National Championships in all sports cause i think they got yall beat by alot
Posted by: Adam | September 11, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Good thing you Americans aren't wasting your time and effort with anything worthless! After all, you are the greatest nation on Earth and this is clearly present in these comments. I wish one day we will reach your level!
Posted by: No Name | September 12, 2008 at 09:25 AM