Penn State University has reached a groundbreaking settlement in its trademark dispute over the phrase “For The Kids,” allowing nonprofits and charitable organizations to use the slogan royalty-free for pediatric cancer fundraising. This resolution, announced in August 2025, ends a two-year legal battle that began when a childhood cancer survivor challenged the university’s exclusive trademark rights.
Organizations facing similar trademark challenges can learn valuable lessons from how Penn State transformed a potential legal defeat into a community relations victory. As someone who has filed over 6,000 trademark applications, I’ve witnessed how well-planned settlements can achieve business goals while avoiding costly litigation risks.
Timeline and Key Players in the Dispute
Kaylee Tutrow, a former University of Iowa Dance Marathon volunteer and childhood cancer survivor, filed a petition in August 2023 to cancel Penn State’s trademark. Penn State had secured federal trademark protection for “For The Kids” in January 2020, though the university’s THON dance marathon had used the phrase since 1991.
Tutrow’s challenge centered on her extensive charitable work using the phrase before Penn State’s 2019 filing date. She documented participation in Indiana University-Purdue University’s dance marathon “Jagathon,” where she personally raised more than $14,000. Her legal team argued that widespread use of “for the kids” by various charitable organizations made the phrase merely descriptive rather than distinctive of Penn State’s services.
A December 2024 board ruling supported Tutrow’s position, finding that she had sufficiently demonstrated the phrase was descriptive and lacked distinctiveness. This ruling set the stage for August 2025 settlement negotiations that would ultimately benefit the entire pediatric cancer fundraising community.
Under the settlement terms, any group, individual, or charitable organization can now use “For The Kids” royalty-free when fundraising for pediatric patient research, care, and support. Penn State maintains trademark ownership while requiring users to consent to specific terms that prevent false university associations.
Legal Analysis Behind Penn State’s Settlement Decision
Penn State faced a vulnerable legal position that made settlement the wisest choice. When trademark holders cannot prove their mark has acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace, they risk losing all rights through cancellation proceedings.
Descriptive marks like “For The Kids” require extensive evidence showing consumers associate the phrase with a specific source. Charitable slogans present particular challenges because multiple organizations often use similar language for identical purposes. Penn State would have needed to prove that consumers specifically linked “For The Kids” with their university rather than pediatric cancer fundraising generally.
Evidence of widespread prior use by other organizations further weakened Penn State’s position. University of Iowa had used the phrase in promotional materials since at least 2011, and they had even named a street “For The Kids Way” before trademark restrictions forced a name change to “Hawkeye Wave Way.”
I regularly advise clients that litigation costs can quickly exceed the value of disputed trademarks. Penn State likely spent significant resources defending their registration, with no guarantee of success given the board’s preliminary ruling. Settlement allowed them to control future use while avoiding additional legal expenses.
Most importantly, continued litigation risked complete loss of trademark rights. If Tutrow had succeeded in her cancellation petition, “For The Kids” would have entered the public domain entirely. Penn State’s settlement preserves their ownership while creating a managed licensing framework.
Understanding Descriptive Mark Challenges in Trademark Law
Trademark law divides marks into categories based on their relationship to the goods or services they identify. This classification system determines both registrability and strength of protection.
Generic terms receive no trademark protection because they simply name the category of goods or services. “Corn flakes” cannot be trademarked for cereal because it merely describes the product type rather than identifying a specific brand source.
Descriptive marks occupy the next level, requiring proof of acquired distinctiveness before registration. These marks describe characteristics, qualities, or purposes of the goods or services. “Cold and Creamy” would be descriptive for ice cream because it describes the product’s attributes.
Suggestive marks require consumers to use imagination to connect the mark with the product. “Coppertone” suggests sun protection without directly describing suntan lotion. These marks receive automatic protection without proving distinctiveness.
Arbitrary marks use common words in unexpected ways. “Apple” has no logical connection to computers, making it an arbitrary mark that receives strong protection in the technology field while remaining generic for actual fruit.
Fanciful marks represent the strongest category because they’re invented words like “Kodak” or “Exxon” created specifically for trademark purposes. These receive maximum protection because they serve no purpose other than brand identification.
“For The Kids” falls into the descriptive category because it directly describes the charitable purpose rather than identifying Penn State specifically. Without proof that consumers associate this phrase exclusively with Penn State’s THON program, the trademark remained vulnerable to challenge.
Practical Lessons for Organizations Using Popular Phrases
Organizations can avoid similar disputes by carefully evaluating their slogans before seeking trademark protection. Consider whether your phrase merely describes your mission or actually distinguishes your specific organization from others in your field.
Document all uses of your chosen phrase from the earliest adoption date. Maintain records showing how you’ve used the slogan in marketing materials, fundraising campaigns, and public communications. This evidence becomes crucial if you need to prove priority of use or acquired distinctiveness.
Monitor how other organizations in your sector use similar language. If competitors adopt comparable phrases, address potential conflicts early through licensing agreements or coexistence arrangements rather than waiting for formal challenges to arise.
Evaluate the public relations implications before enforcing trademark rights aggressively. Penn State initially faced community criticism for restricting other charitable organizations’ use of “For The Kids.” Their settlement transformed negative publicity into positive community engagement.
Consider creating defensive licensing programs from the start. Rather than seeking absolute exclusivity, develop frameworks that allow legitimate uses while preventing commercial exploitation. This approach can strengthen your trademark while building goodwill within your community.
For organizations already using phrases similar to existing trademarks, gather evidence of your prior use immediately. Tutrow’s success relied heavily on her ability to prove extensive charitable work using the phrase before Penn State’s filing date. Such documentation can be decisive in opposition or cancellation proceedings.
Protecting Your Organization’s Brand Identity
Penn State’s experience demonstrates why organizations need experienced legal counsel for trademark matters. While they maintained some rights through settlement, different initial approaches might have achieved stronger protection. (They also routinely protect their other PSU trademarks.)
I work with nonprofits and businesses to develop trademark plans that balance protection with community relations. This includes conducting thorough searches before adoption, filing applications that emphasize distinctive elements, and creating licensing frameworks that accommodate legitimate uses by others.
Don’t wait until you’re facing a trademark dispute to seek legal advice. Early consultation can help you avoid conflicts while building stronger protection for your valuable brand assets. Contact my office today to discuss how proper trademark planning can protect your organization’s identity while maintaining positive community relationships.
