## Facts

- Pennsylvania State University (PSU) provided orthopedic and sports-medicine services in State College using “university”-branded health-service names.
- University Orthopedics, Ltd. (UO), a competing orthopedic/sports-medicine practice in the same market, used “university” in its name, logo, advertisements, and promotional materials.
- PSU alleged UO’s branding and promotions implied affiliation or sponsorship by PSU and caused consumer confusion as to source or affiliation.
- In 1992, the parties signed a Release Agreement under which PSU agreed not to sue to enforce its common-law rights, and UO agreed to include a non-affiliation disclaimer in all advertisements and literature.
- PSU later alleged UO omitted the disclaimer in multiple advertisements and continued using “university” in ways that maintained confusion and harmed PSU’s goodwill.
- PSU filed an equity action seeking injunctive relief and damages for (1) breach of contract, (2) common-law unfair competition, (3) violation of Pennsylvania’s anti-dilution statute, and (4) violation of Lanham Act § 43(a).
- The trial court granted UO summary judgment on all claims and denied PSU’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on PSU’s breach-of-contract claim where PSU offered evidence that UO failed to include the required disclaimer in all advertisements and literature.
2. Whether the trial court erred by treating PSU’s unfair-competition and Lanham Act § 43(a) claims as barred because PSU lacked an exclusive right to the word “university,” rather than assessing secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion in the relevant market context.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on PSU’s state anti-dilution claim given evidence that UO’s use could blur PSU’s identity and goodwill in university-branded medical services.

## Decision

- The Superior Court reversed the order granting summary judgment for UO on all counts and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that, viewing the record in PSU’s favor, genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether UO breached the Release Agreement’s “all advertisements and literature” disclaimer requirement.
- The court held the trial court misapplied unfair-competition and trademark principles by effectively requiring PSU to prove exclusive ownership of “university” and by dismissing claims without a proper confusion-based analysis.
- The court held that factual disputes concerning secondary meaning, likelihood of confusion as to affiliation/sponsorship, and dilution precluded summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only where no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence and inferences must be taken in the nonmovant’s favor.
- A contractual obligation to include a disclaimer in all advertising materials presents a fact question on breach when the record contains evidence of omitted disclaimers.
- Lanham Act § 43(a) and common-law unfair competition can protect unregistered designations that function as source identifiers; the core inquiry is likely confusion, including confusion as to affiliation or sponsorship.
- Even where a term is generic in the abstract, liability may turn on whether the overall use in a specific trade context has acquired secondary meaning and whether the defendant’s presentation is likely to confuse consumers.
- State anti-dilution protection may apply where a designation is sufficiently distinctive in the relevant market and another’s use may blur the association and goodwill, even without proof of actual confusion.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required further proceedings because the record supported triable disputes over UO’s compliance with a disclaimer agreement and over whether UO’s “university” branding in the local medical-services market created protectable secondary meaning, likely confusion about affiliation, or dilution of PSU’s goodwill.


Pa. State Univ. v. Univ. Orthopedics, Ltd., 706 A.2d 863 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998)