Unfortunately, your March 15 editorial — “The denial of Penn State’s ‘Happy Valley’ trademark attempt could be for the better” — curiously omitted the following information:
- Penn State made clear its goal is to protect the importance of the mark for continued use by Penn State. The previous holder did not charge Penn State — nor, to our knowledge, other local businesses. A new one might.
- Penn State made clear it does not plan to charge local businesses for continued use. It seems rather silly, therefore, to call our filing a “cash grab.”
- Penn State reached out to local leaders to begin to coordinate potential use as a shared community effort, so that responsible usage standards could be set.
Perhaps the Collegian feels an entity like the one that previously tried to trademark Happy Valley for a drug legalization campaign would be a more productive use of the mark? Or, perhaps the Collegian feels Penn State should refrain from protecting the revenue interests of its licensing program, which helps to generate scholarships for students?
So, did the Collegian do its homework on the topic before editorializing, and meet its reporting responsibilities? We aren’t sure, but appreciate the opportunity to make these points.
In December, Penn State applied to trademark the phrase "Happy Valley” — and this past week,…
In December of 2018, Penn State submitted an application in an attempt to trademark the phra…