The Green Forest School District can continue using a tiger-head logo the University of Missouri-Columbia had protested because of its purported similarity to the Mizzou logo, according to a letter Green Forest released Friday.
“We don’t have to change anything,” said Green Forest Superintendent Matt Summers. “There’s no legal battles.”
A dispute between the Carroll County school district of 1,250 students and the university of 35,000 students began in October when Summers received a letter from Collegiate Licensing Co., a licensing representative for the university. The licensing company asked the district to stop using its tiger-head logo because the university thought the design was too much like the mascot design the university owns.
But the Green Forest School Board in November voted to continue using the logo because the district’s tiger head was designed by a former teacher.
In early December, the university offered a free license for the school district to continue using the tiger head, but Green Forest officials instead proposed an agreement that would allow both schools to continue using their respective logos without need for litigation.
The most recent proposal by the university settles the issue, Summers said.
Charles Harwell, a Springdale attorney who represents Green Forest, considered the letter a peace offering by Collegiate Licensing.
“It doesn’t require Green Forest to accept or reject it,” Harwell said. “It says go forth and do what you do. They’ll monitor.”
In the letter written Tuesday, the University of Missouri acknowledges that Green Forest Public Schools has a good reputation and uses its logo for high-quality goods and services.
As long as the district continues to use its logo for school-related purposes, the university gives the district permission to continue using the tiger head that was under dispute, according to the letter written by James Aronowitz, an attorney for Collegiate Licensing.
“So long as [the district] complies with the terms of this authorization, including the quality provisions above, this authorization will not be terminated,” the letter states.
Summers said he still thinks the two tiger heads are different, but the letter offers some resolution to the issue.
“Our point has been made,” Summers said. “This has been much ado about nothing.”
Arkansas, Pages 16 on 03/08/2014