## Facts

- The University of Pittsburgh (“Pitt”) used “University of Pittsburgh,” “Pitt,” “Panthers,” and related insignia (including a panther mascot and university seal) in connection with its athletics and campus merchandising for decades.
- Pitt’s bookstore and related channels sold apparel and novelty goods bearing these names and insignia for many years.
- Champion Products, Inc. manufactured and sold “soft goods,” a large share of which were imprinted with names and symbols of universities and other entities.
- For decades, Champion manufactured and marketed apparel bearing Pitt’s names and insignia, selling both on and off campus.
- Pitt did not promptly assert formal trademark rights against Champion’s sales; later it pursued state registrations and federal applications for certain marks.
- Pitt sought to implement a licensing program for use of its names and insignia; Champion declined to enter the proposed licensing agreement.
- Pitt sued Champion asserting trademark infringement and unfair competition based on Champion’s continued sale of Pitt-branded apparel.

## Issues

1. Whether laches barred Pitt’s trademark infringement and unfair competition claims in full, including its request for prospective injunctive relief against future sales.
2. Whether Pitt’s delay in suing and Champion’s reliance and resulting prejudice supported applying laches to bar retrospective relief.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the judgment insofar as laches barred Pitt’s claims for retrospective relief based on past conduct.
- The court reversed the judgment to the extent it applied laches to bar Pitt’s claim for prospective injunctive relief.
- The court remanded for further consideration of the facts and law relevant to whether forward-looking injunctive relief was warranted.

## Legal Principles

- Laches is an equitable defense requiring (1) inexcusable delay in bringing suit and (2) prejudice to the defendant attributable to the delay.
- In trademark and unfair competition cases, laches may bar damages or other retrospective remedies when the plaintiff’s delay has prejudiced the defendant.
- Courts should not treat laches as automatically foreclosing prospective injunctive relief, because trademark law also protects the public from confusion caused by ongoing or future deceptive use.
- When injunctive relief is sought despite delay, courts must assess the equities and the trademark merits relevant to future confusion rather than ending the case solely on laches.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Pitt’s delay could bar retrospective relief, but laches did not automatically preclude an injunction against future use of Pitt’s identifiers; the case was remanded for a merits-and-equities evaluation of prospective injunctive relief.


Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Champion Prods., Inc., 686 F.2d 1040 (3d Cir. 1982)