The Republican National Committee on Monday largely backed off from threats to sue CafePress for hosting an online venue for vendors to hawk trademarked GOP-related regalia like T-shirts, stickers and portrayals of elephants.

"The RNC is basically caving," said Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer for Public Citizen Litigation Group, the nonprofit group representing the Foster City-based T-shirt-selling site.

Under the deal, the Grand Old Party will allow the sale of most anything depicting its trademarks. The RNC owns the trademarks to "GOP," "Grand Old Party," "Republican National Committee," "RNC" and the official GOP elephant logo.

The accord, however, requires CafePress vendors selling paraphernalia solely with the trademarked GOP elephant logo or the letters G-O-P to secure a license from the committee.

"Those users selling shirts or bumper stickers that is nothing but that must apply for licenses," Levy said in a telephone interview. "It's hard to justify litigation over that."

Levy, who said the accord is the result of recent back-and-forth negotiations, expected the licenses would be free. "If not, we'll have to figure out what we'll do about it."

Hundreds of various GOP-related pieces of merchandise are for sale on CafePress – some favorable and some not. The GOP did not discriminate against favorable or unfavorable paraphernalia.

On Thursday, Threat Level published one of a few letters (.pdf) the committee sent to CafePress before the flap was resolved.

"Please cease and desist from allowing vendors to utilize the federally registered trademarks of the RNC or we will be forced to consider a legal remedy," Sean Cairncross, the party's chief counsel, wrote CafePress.

Alex Conant, a GOP spokesman, said "We asked them to stop selling with our trademarked logo on them. They agreed."

The agreement, (.pdf) for example, would not require a license to sell a shirt with a design portraying a GOP-trademarked elephant trailed by two smaller elephants and the words, "I'm raising my children right." Before the deal, the committee maintained such a depiction was a trademark violation.

See Also: