Sid McDonald
The Board of Trustees
The University of Alabama System
Dear Sid:
Thank you for responding to my letter to the Board of Trustees. In your response I saw a glimmer of hope—the first one yet in my saga with the University. You stated you would seek additional information on my issue during the Trustees recent meeting. Can you inform me as to what you were able to discover?
If my issue is, as you stated, a "president's level" matter, then I am extremely disappointed in President Witt's non-performance regarding it. As you discovered in the copies of my letters to him, my first request for action was July 1, 2003. It is my opinion (perhaps somewhat due to my own bias in the matter) that Dr. Witt should have assigned a very high priority to this issue.
The biggest concern that the University should have is that it has set up a roadblock to "free speech." There is no doubt in my mind that the University will be shamed and condemned by our Alumni, the press and the courts as I take this issue to the next phase. And regrettably, as I stated would happen in my previous letter, we entered into that phase as of October 1, 2004.
Another concern that the University should have is that its actions and policies regarding this issue have resulted in lost revenues to UA. According to the articles on the Trustees' meeting in the Birmingham News, the University certainly could have used the revenue that would have been generated through my product licensing, joint ventures and advertising.
To explain, allow me to briefly recap: (1) For over two years now I have been barred from advertising in all UA controlled media (this has resulted in a loss of revenue to UA as well as a tortious interference with a business relationship) (2) I was turned down for licensing on two products (both of which I and UA agreed were subject to licensing and one of which would have already been re-licensed by this time). The only reason these products were denied licensing was because I would not agree with UA's position that the football team's uniforms rise to the level and protection afforded to "trademarks." Nonetheless, I simply removed the valid UA trademarks from my prototypes for these products and manufactured and marketed them anyway.
Sid, no matter what anyone at the University of Alabama might wishfully think—the fact is, Bama's uniforms simply are not trademarks. But, of the utmost significance—even if they were trademarks, they are considered "fair usage" in a work of art (protected speech) according to the Federal rulings I referenced in my previous letters.
I noticed that UA is planning to spend significant money on renovating Coleman Coliseum. I recognize the need to maintain and improve its physical assets and I applaud those efforts. However, if I were President of the University of Alabama, I would show the same deference to its human assets, alumni and supporters. Of all such, I have been—and yet remain.
Sincerely,
Daniel A. Moore, President
New Life Art, Inc.
