As the premier specialty IP law practice of Goldman Law Group, it is the mission of  BRANDING LAW to provide legal strategy and protection for corporate and personal branding interests, reporting on all major developments in the field.

While patents, copyrights, and particularly trademarks/trade dress form the backbone of corporate brand protection, trade regulation is an important facet as well. For that reason, we follow all new advertising law and antitrust cases very closely. So that leads us into today’s topic:

Of course, there’s no bigger single-day, branded sporting event in the world than the Super Bowl. Corporations are willing to pay millions for just thirty seconds of brand exposure. But with nearly twenty million viewers tuning in, there’s no bigger audience. Stadium signage and naming rights sponsorships account for even more brand visibility. Not to mention, the iconic Goodyear Blimp.

There are tremendous merchandising opportunities too, as branded fans wear officially-licensed jerseys, hats and other logo apparel to publicly display their strong emotional connection to a particular team. But the NFL remains the strongest brand of all…or maybe not? And the question of the day is whether the various professional football teams are separate entities, owning rights to their individual brands?

Just recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided just that in American Needle v. NFL, No. 08-661. In brief, Plaintiff sued the sports behemoth, alleging antitrust violations after Defendant granted an exclusive license to Reebok. If the teams were deemed independent actors, then arguably, there could be a finding of anti-competitive collusion. Conversely, a ruling in Defendant’s favor would provide the NFL with de facto antitrust immunity.

However, in writing for the majority, Justice Stevens reasoned: “Each of the teams is a substantial, independently owned and independently managed business.” Furthermore, he wrote, “To a firm making hats, the Saints and the Colts are two potentially competing suppliers of valuable trademarks.” Essentially summing it all up and remanding the case to the lower court, he then opined: “The teams compete with one another, not only on the playing field, but to attract fans, for gate receipts and for contracts with managerial and playing personnel.”

While this decision could be an important ‘win’ for trademark owners, we will continue to monitor and report on any new developments. But in the meantime, please contact us if you have any specific questions or concerns regarding your own IP portfolio and branding strategies.