Super Bowl® Trademarks: By the Numbers

[Blogmeister’s note: Kevin Goldberg, our resident Swami when it comes to predicting Supreme Court decisions, is also our guru (Swami? Guru? Yes, he’s that multicultural) for all things trademark. Since it’s That Time Of The Year, we asked him to re-visit the NFL’s perennial effort to control the use of the term “Super Bowl®”. The Swami initially larded his response with tons of references to Tim Tebow in a transparent attempt to attract all kinds of hits to his post. But we’re obviously above the kind of cheap ruse that would depend on repeated use of the name “Tim Tebow” to improve CommLawBlog®’s hit stats. Accordingly, we have edited out of Kevin’s post the name “Tim Tebow” (who plays for the Denver Broncos® – who aren’t even playing in the Super Bowl® this year. Everybody knows it’s the New York Giants® and the New England Patriots®, featuring Tom Brady).]

Football is a game of numbers. Here are some interesting Super Bowl®-related numbers for you:

455      The number of trademark applications that have been filed listing the “National Football League” as the applicant/owner

141      The number of federally registered trademarks owned by the “National Football League”

9          The number of trademarks containing the word “Super” that are owned by the National Football League

11        The number of international classes in which these trademarks exist

Ideally you’ve figured out by now that this post serves as our annual reminder – for the fourth year running – that the National Football League takes its trademarks very seriously. The league uses those marks to protect its exclusive right to use the term “Super Bowl®”. As the NFL®  sees it, that right extends not only to the game itself, but also to a mind-numbing range of stuff from clothing to jewelry to party invitations/napkins/decorations/posters to sporting goods to a concert series to things like . . . television broadcasting services.

Close examination of available records indicates that the scope of the NFL®’s trademark protection does not appear to include parties, restaurants, bars or contests. As a result, one might legitimately wonder whether the NFL® really has the strength it claims in threatening legal action against anyone using the term “Super Bowl” in promoting their own events (assuming you could do so without infringing the NFL®’s trademarks with respect to goods and services that it has protected). But there’s no doubt that the league (like the owner of our local Super Bowl-averse franchise here in DC), has never been shy about threatening legal action and certainly has the money to back it up. 

Better safe than sorry we say, so we’ll reiterate our advice from last year:

The NFL has registered several trademarks, many of which you might feel inclined to use when you’re referring to the Event-Of-Overriding-National-Importance-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named. These include: the expressions “Super Bowl®”, “Super Sunday®”, “National Football League®”, “American Football Conference®” “National Football Conference®”, “NFL®”, “AFC®”, “NFC®”. The NFL  also holds a registration on the Super Bowl logo, and all team names, uniforms and logos.

With that in mind, one should NOT use any of these terms or images in a way that falsely connotes any connection to the league, the game or the teams, especially if that occurs in conjunction with the promotion of any event, contest, or other activity not sanctioned by the league.

On the other hand, one MAY use those terms and images in a legitimate news story, factual recitation or commentary about the game, before or after it occurs. One MAY also use other, generic terms which have not been registered as trademarks including the all-time favorite alternative, i.e., “The Big Game” (although several years ago the NFL® took an unsuccessful stab at registering “The Big Game”). One MAY also use the names of the cities whose teams are competing in the game (without using the team nicknames).

And, as we’ve said before, the same considerations apply to lots of other prominent sports- or entertainment-related trademarks, so consider all of this equally applicable to events such as the Oscars®, March Madness®, and the Olympics®. (Helpful practice tip: The IOC is another entity not shy about asserting its legal rights.)

Finally, since this post is all about the number and because I am the Swami, I’d be remiss if I didn’t offer a prediction on the Big Game. (This is, of course, for entertainment purposes only):

Patriots: 34 

Giants: 28

Take that with a grain of salt, since the Super Bowl® is generally the only game I watch in its entirety each year, and those 60 minutes are probably more football than I watched in the previous 20 weeks. You want a real prediction for Sunday, February 5? Chelsea: 1, Manchester United: 3. Glory, Glory Man United!

[Blogmeister’s note: “Multicultural” only begins to describe him . . .]

Coming Soon: The Event-Of-Overriding-National-Importance-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named

 Heads up – the NFL is watching you . . .

It’s time for that most evergreen of January stories: the annual reminder that you have to be careful about using the words “super” and “bowl” together in any way. That’s because the NFL is on the look-out for “unauthorized” uses of its registered trademarks, and one of those trademarks happens to be “Super Bowl®”. We put “unauthorized” in quotation marks here because the No Fun League has a somewhat (how can we say this delicately?) expansive view of its own ability to prevent anybody from uttering those two words – a view which is not universally shared.

The League’s position, as far as we can tell, is that pretty much any non-news use of the Two-Word-Phrase-That-Shall-Not-Be-Spoken necessarily implies an affiliation with the NFL. To the NFL, this in turn apparently means that the NFL is absolutely entitled to control who can utter the Unutterable Phrase and when It can be uttered. Whether that view is supported by, say, the law is far from clear. (But, as Gene Pitney once cogently observed, in some instances “a law book [does] no good.”)

However the law might stack up on this, it’s probably best to view the NFL as you would the obnoxious loud-mouth jerk down at the other end of the bar who’s had a few and is loudly insisting that his knowledge of sports trivia is superior to everybody else’s. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s not – but who wants to bother to find out?

So here’s what you need to know.

The NFL has registered several trademarks, many of which you might feel inclined to use when you’re referring to the Event-Of-Overriding-National-Importance-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named. These include: the expressions “Super Bowl®”, “Super Sunday®”, “National Football League®”, “American Football Conference®” “National Football Conference®”, “NFL®”, “AFC®”, “NFC®”. The NFL also holds a registration on the Super Bowl logo, and all team names, uniforms and logos.

With that in mind, one should NOT use any of these terms or images in a way that falsely connotes any connection to the league, the game or the teams, especially if that occurs in conjunction with the promotion of any event, contest, or other activity not sanctioned by the league.

On the other hand, one MAY use those terms and images in a legitimate news story, factual recitation or commentary about the game, before or after it occurs. One MAY also use other, generic terms which have not been registered as trademarks including the all-time favorite alternative, i.e., “The Big Game” (although several years ago the NFL® took an unsuccessful stab at registering “The Big Game”). One MAY also use the names of the cities whose teams are competing in the game (without using the team nicknames).

Enough lawyering, though.  Let’s enjoy the Big Game (as we twiddle our thumbs awaiting March Madn  – wait, that’s trademarked by the NCAA. Oh well.)

Litigating Licensing and Likenesses

A couple of recent court cases touch on issues we've discussed recently regarding the licensing of image and other trademark-type rights claimed to be held by athletes and sports leagues.  

Licensing of NFL Apparel

The big news is that the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral argument in a case involving the National Football League's ability to engage in exclusive licensing of its merchandise.  The case  is an appeal by a company called American Needle of an adverse decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  For some 20 years American Needle (along with a number of competitors) had been licensed by the NFL to produce and sell caps bearing NFL logos. But then the NFL decided to enter into an exclusive marketing deal with only one company.  After Reebok was awarded the exclusive deal, American Needle challenged the right of the NFL to strike such an exclusive deal.  American Needle lost the last round in the Seventh Circuit.

Sports law experts are watching the case because, in a separate petition for Supreme Court review, the NFL itself had asked the Court to broaden the antitrust exemption the NFL currently enjoys.  The relief the NFL sought could affect not only all aspects of the NFL's operation, but also the status and operation of other major professional sports leagues.  Since the Supremes appear to have granted only American Needle's petition for cert, and not the NFL's, it's not clear whether the NFL's requested relief will be fair game when the case is presented.  But we'll be watching to see whether the Court makes any pronouncements that might shed light on how it would rule in other areas regarding licensing of team or player trademarks or image rights. 

While the American Needle case involves an overtly commercial use of these trademarks, there is an outside chance that the Court could make a broader pronouncement about the licensing of these rights generally which would affect the ongoing lawsuits by CBS Interactive and Yahoo against the NFL regarding the use of player images and information in fantasy sports. We'd rate this as "highly unlikely" but may attend the oral argument nonetheless. 

Use of College Football Player Image Rights in Video Games

More former college football players are stepping up in the pocket to file suit against Electronic Arts for that company's use of their likenesses in its "NCAA Football" video game.  We previously discussed the lawsuit filed by former Nebraska and Arizona State quarterback Sam Keller.  That case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.  Now former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart has filed a similar action in a state court in Somerville, NJ.  He is joined in this lawsuit by former University of California quarterback Troy Taylor. 

So, while college football players may or may not attend class, at least a few former players might become part of a class action lawsuit.