In a University setting, it typically depends on whether or not University resources (including "work time") were used when creating the item.At the risk of derailing the thread, I am curious about one thing. If there are any attorneys on here, perhaps they can answer this.
Typically anytime you create something in the course of conducting your job, it's considered a "work for hire" and ownership of any related copyrights or trademarks is retained by the employer. Why doesn't that apply to Pitino in this case? Is it simply of function of that possibly not being included in his contract?
Here, it would be tough to prove Pitino used University resources when creating the slogan. On the other hand, if he applied for it using his University email account, for example, the school could have a case.
They have let him get away with so much already though. I can't imagine they would even attempt to challenge him on this.