Judge to rule in logo dispute

ANCHORAGE — The seeds of dissent have germinated and blossomed into legal war between the Mat-Su Chapter of the Alaska Farm Bureau and the state Division of Agriculture.

Both sides pulled no punches Wednesday during nearly two hours of oral arguments over which entity owns the Alaska Grown logo’s licensing rights to be used on apparel, like T-shirts, sweatshirts and hats.

Superior Court Judge Jack Smith sat attentively while Assistant Attorney General Steven Ross argued the state’s claim to the Alaska Grown logo is so strong the judge should summarily rule in its favor. The Alaska Farm Bureau’s Mat-Su Chapter is attempting a hostile takeover of the image with an intention to have a monopoly on the logo and its use on apparel, Ross said.

The Alaska Farm Bureau and its predecessor organization, Alaska Farmers and Stockgrowers Association, has been the main user of the logo for apparel for nearly 20 years, countered attorney Michael Jungrels, who is representing the nonprofit group. Jungrels argued the state failed to protect the Alaska Grown logo so the Farm Bureau chapter took action.

That was in 2005, when the Mat-Su Chapter applied to register the logo as a federal trademark, which would give it proprietary ownership of the logo for use on apparel. The state filed its lawsuit in February 2006. Judge Smith ruled in August that the state would suffer irreparable harm if the Mat-Su AFB chapter were successful in establishing a federal trademark of the logo. He ordered all proceeds the chapter earned from apparel sales be put into a secure account pending the resolution of the lawsuit.

The Alaska Grown program was created in 1986 by the state Division of Agriculture and the Alaska Farmers and Stockgrowers Association. In the more than 20 years since, the logo has been a marketing tool and certification mark that identifies food bearing the logo was produced by Alaska farmers. Other items, like T-shirts and stickers, are promotional tools and are not required to be produced in the state.

More than 300 growers and food producers participate in the Alaska Grown program, Ross said, including the Mat-Su Farm Bureau chapter. Still, the chapter applied to trademark the program’s logo “as its own,” he said.

If the Farm Bureau felt it had a legal claim to ownership of the logo, why did it acknowledge it had an implied licensing agreement with the state to use the logo, Ross asked. He presented what the state says are numerous examples and affidavits of former Farm Bureau officials admitting asking the state for permission to use the logo, which demonstrates the organization acknowledged the state controls the Alaska Grown image.

“The Mat-Su Chapter’s efforts to obtain ownership of the Alaska Grown logo is based on an irrational belief that because it has sold T-shirts with the logo it should own it,” Ross said. “Their goal ... is to obtain a monopoly of [the] Alaska Grown logo sales.”

Ross’ admissions are not credible, Jungrels argued. The Mat-Su Borough is not seeking to monopolize Alaska Grown apparel sales; rather, after noticing unauthorized reproduction of Alaska Grown clothing, it is prepared to oversee and protect the logo’s use.

“[The state’s] stewardship of the Alaska Grown apparel and license has been as effective as the state’s [management] of the dairy industry,” Jungrels said, adding there is no written agreement or license between the Mat-Su Farm Bureau chapter and the state.

“If there is no license, the state has stood by as the [Mat-Su] organization has built up this mark through its own hard work,” he said. “The Mat-Su Chapter has come to depend on these resources. ... This alleged contract leaves no trace — at all — other than some assertions we were authorized [to use the logo]. How can there be a licensing agreement when there is no trace of it?”

Although the Farm Bureau chapter says it’s trying to protect the logo for everyone, that’s not in its trademark application, Ross said.

“They registered it solely on their behalf,” he said, adding the 20 years of Alaska Grown program history establishes the state’s claim to the logo.

“The state either owns it or it doesn’t,” he said. The Mat-Su Chapter made requests to the Division of Agriculture in April 2004 and March 2005 asking for exclusive rights to the logo for apparel sales.

“They repeatedly asked for exclusive rights to the logo,” Ross said. “Why would they do that if the state didn’t own the logo?”

The Farm Bureau “is on record” pledging to be a public steward of the logo, not monopolize it, said Karen Olson, Mat-Su Chapter executive director. Because the chapter relies on revenues generated by T-shirt sales and other Alaska Grown promotional products, it can’t fulfill its mission of funding agriculture initiatives when those revenues are held up by the lawsuit, Olson said.

The state’s lawsuit over the logo “has nothing to do with crushing the Mat-Su Chapter,” Ross said. “We’ve got to defend it. We can’t jeopardize the ownership of that mark.”

Judge Smith took the arguments under advisement and said he would likely rule on the state’s summary judgment motion by Jan. 7, when the case is set for a status hearing.

Contact Greg Johnson at greg.johnson@frontiersman.com or 352-2268.