Yep. Seems to me that after 10-15 years of us having Louisiana plastered everywhere, someone would have shut this down 'legally' a long time ago.
Not to mention all those 'illegal' UL's everywhere.
Instead, all we have are a few old hillbilly inbred women nagging about it on the internet. Pitifull, really.
I don't think we would have been granted the registered trademark of Louisiana Ragin Cajuns if the words paired together were prohibited. I'm sure lawsuits would have been filed. None have and we own that name. If you don't believe it, tune into any UL athletic event and look at the name across the jerseys or helmets. You would have seen them last night when we were on ESPN in a super regional. If you like, you can tune into our baseball conference championship game tomorrow morning. You won't be playing in yours so you'll have some free time.
The University of Louisiana Ragin Cajuns would be prohibited but Louisiana Ragin Cajuns is not. Read the law again and try to comprehend.
I know. I know. Everyone thinks they are a lawyer.
Good question, why was that law written?
It's because when the Judge observed "no law says you can change your name" (and used it as a basis of denial) he exposed the fact that no law said they couldn't change their name.
The solution of course was to hurriedly write a retroactive law stating they couldn't.
Back to your question; By the spirit and intent of this law, all references pertained to "University of" they were hyper specific that it was "University of" that engaged the law.
This went far beyond no law says you can/no law says you can't. This law narrowed the scope to the pinpoint detail "University of"
The city designation was irrelevant if "University of" was not used.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)