The first thing that struck me when I read this post was that I wondered how Walmart could do this legally if as is stated "Wal-Mart has no right to sell the apparel; the Schools own the brands and logos. ". But, that is not what the linked article says at all. It says "Ryan believes that not many high schools have gone through the legal process to get trademark and logo ownership to prohibit retailers from using their school name and logo."
If the schools have not legally protected their trademarks and logos than anyone can use them. Doesn't the responsibility for this really lie with the schools?

Registering with the Sec of State is just one way to protect a copyright. Filing a lawsuit is another. I hope they do just that.



But why should they have to aggressively pursue trademark and copyrights in the first place?



It's a policy decision for the courts:



These are public schools. Their sole mission is to teach. Private corporations on the other hand (to whom profit is the sole motive) ought to be the ones who have to actively protect their work.



School fundraisers are small scale out of necessity. Plus, several of the schools mentioned in the articles are rural schools. You can't fairly compare an A or AA high school with a large university with a multi-million dollar budget and an affluent alumni association. If they had the money for a copyright attorney, they'd spend it on textbooks, etc.



But no, these fundraisers are run by parents, teachers, and other volunteers -- the people WalMart has chosen as its new "competition." Apparently, they're tired of going after their real competitors, and have decided to go after easier targets -- kind of like Mike Tyson versus an infant.



The simple fact is, WalMart is trying to exploit a loophole for their own gain. Nothing more.



Maybe next they'll start selling unlicensed logo merchandise for charities. Did Habitat for Humanity and Race for the Cure make sure to file their copyrights? What about the Special Olympics?



There's a tip jar at the local mini mart for a kid who needs surgery and doesn't have insurance. I sure hope he copyrighted the little picture he drew on the jar!!

By the way, TC --



The Greater Spokane League is a parks & rec sports organization. Mr. Ryan probably does a great job as Exec. Director. I don't actually know, but I believe he deserves the benefit of the doubt.



However, being Exec Director of a parks & rec board does not make him an expert on copyrights.



Plus, the article does not mention (and Mr. Ryan may not have been privy to) any consignment agreements between local retailers and the local schools. As the article makes abundantly clear, the schools don't really have a problem with their logo merchandise being sold in WalMart (or any other) stores. In fact, that might be a significant boon to fundraising.



That is, if the schools got a reasonable -- heck, ANY -- cut of the profits.



Oh, and GO EASTERN EAGLES!!

My main point is that the post says "as the articles point out, Wal-Mart has no right to sell the apparel; the Schools own the brands and logos" and that is not what the article says so the post is misleading at best.
The second point is that there are trademark infringement laws. If Walmart has broken any of these laws then they should be punished and some sort of accomodation should be reached with the injured parties. What seems to elude union types is that Walmart is a for profit business. Its' whole reason for being is to generate profits for its' owners-the stockholders. Walmart invests money, as all smart businesses do, on strategic planning and targeted marketing to determine what will sell and what won't. Based on the results they contract with suppliers to provide goods that they feel will sell and earn a profit. Part of the research that goes on is patent and trademark research. If the images or likenesses are protected then a fee needs to be paid, if not they are not then they are in the public domain.
Maybe it would have been a good pr move to donate a portion of the proceeds to the organizations in question. But, that's up to Walmart isn't it?
Walmart is not the only retailer to do this. The article also mentions Walgreens. The attack on Walmart in particular is just further proof that the union behind this site believes in the "domino theory". If they can get Walmart, the largest, to fall then all of the others will fall as a result.

We understand corporations need to make a profit. But why is it you anti-union types always assume corporate greed is a GOOD thing? Sure...I get it...they need to make a profit. But couldn't they make .001 % less profit this year and NOT pull the rug out from under our already financially-strapped schools?

Love him or hate him, Michael Moore made an excellent point on this topic. He asked, "If profit is supreme, why doesn't a company like General Motors sell crack?"

So too, with WalMart. They could make more money manufacturing narcotics, or cheap AK-47 knock offs to sell to Iran, Darfur, etc. Sure, that's illegal. But as you said, WalMart's "whole reason for being is to generate profits for its' [sic] owners-the stockholders."

If they won't let morality stand in the way of increased profits, why worry about a few laws here and there?

Or maybe they already figured that out. It WOULD explain all the lawsuits, wouldn't it?!

P.S. In my opinion, this isn't all about the Domino Theory. It's also about stare decisis. McDonalds learned the hard way. Perhaps WalMart will too.

Here in Canada we have a definition for Wal-Mart.

Wipeout
All
Local
Marketing
And
Retail
Trade

First of all: I hate Walmart with a passion. Just so that there's no misunderstanding about that. I dislike them because of the damage they do to local economies & communities. I have to say, though, that this story almost makes me laugh in an ironic way.

Where I live - in the UK - schools, using their sales / purchase tax free status, rates-free premises & absence of retail staff-costs and retail-specific utility charges, corporation tax exemption, etc etc (together with the huge purchasing power of local authorities), have been undercutting small local businesses for years - flogging musical instruments, clothing, stationery, sports goods, etc. The local two-person-run printers here closed as a result of the school setting up in business as a print & design outfit with - of course - free fifth and sixth-form pupil labour ("developing enterprise awareness & providing business experience" & "imparting marketable skills", of course). Nice little earner for the school: cash in hand, no questions asked.

But what comes around has a habit of going around. If Walmart use their bigger financial clout to start hammering schools around here - well; it's only what the schools themselves have been doing for ages ( and calling it "entrepreneurial fundraising", "developing the school's income streams" etc). Sorry guys - live by the sword, die by the sword.

Jim - you're bloody right there mate. Local school put me out of business (stationery supplies). Despise WalMart though!