clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Bowl Previews and a Lawsuit

If you buy something from an SB Nation link, Vox Media may earn a commission. See our ethics statement.

In a very slow news day, Don Williams has a story on Kingwood punter, Jonathan LaCour, who is only one of two kickers to receive a scholarship under Leach.

So, to give you some things to read/waste time, on what is probably a slow week before Christmas here are some previews for the Insight Bowl game:

CBS Sportsline experts predict a Tech victory.

ESPN predicts Texas Tech will be handing out win handily(if you consider 7 points, handily).  

Fox Sports has some notes.

MSNBC has a preview.

Paul Mont of the Houston Chronicle has a preview of each bowl game, but he hasn't read a paper, where he'd find out that Minnesota, TE Matt Spaeth had surgery on an injured shoulder this past week and he's out for the game.  It gets even better as Spaeth is supposedly a player to watch for Minnesota.  

I've also been following this story, Red Raider Outfitter was sued by Texas Tech University for selling unlicensed clothing.  Now, I'm not real sure where the truth lies on this particular lawsuit, and in most cases, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.  Judge Sam R. Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, ruled in favor of Texas Tech University.  Here's a fairly interesting portion of this article:

In his 26-page ruling, Cummings -- a 1967 Texas Tech grad -- dispatched each of Spiegelberg's defenses. He found that some of the school's slogans date back to the 1930s, and that the university's famed color scheme, while having no "functional" bearing upon the effectiveness of a knit cap or coffee cup, could certainly confuse the public as to whether such items are "official."

Ultimately, the judge found Spiegelberg had engaged in unfair competition, trademark dilution and breach of contract.

In awarding damages, Cummings noted that trademark law allows for the victim of an infringement to "recover the infringer's profits, the plaintiff's damages, and costs." While Spiegelberg was allowed to provide evidence of any deductions -- such as profits on licensed sales -- his "approximately 350 pages of haphazardly filed material" lacked exhibit numbers, page numbers or necessary citations, so the judge awarded all profits Red Raider made from Jan. 2004 through the present to the plaintiff -- $2.9 million through last October, plus whatever gross profits the company has realized to date, plus attorney fees, which have yet to be determined.

Seriously, so let me get this straight, this article makes it sound like that because Spielgelberg was an unprepared defendant, the judge awarded the university $2.9 million, plus all costs?  That's pretty amazing stuff.

Spielgleberg's attorney had this to say:

"There were a lot of facts that the judge adjudicated on his own," Barnes said, even though "this wasn't a bench trial." He will ask for a new trial, and will certainly address the damages issue which, he said, the judge completely miscalculated.

"Our damages expert calculated the reasonable royalties at about $6,000," he said, noting that some 95 percent of Red Raider's inventory is properly licensed. "But instead of taking 5 percent and calculating, he wants to take the gross profits on everything from a piece of candy to a surfboard."

So, like I said, the truth is probably somewhere between $2.9 million and $6,000.00.