United States: Sue-Per Bowl Shuffle 2014: The Year In NFL-Related Intellectual Property Litigation

Last Updated: January 29 2015
Article by David A. Kluft

Heading into this year's Super Bowl party season, there are two things every lawyer should be concerned about. First, why can't your team get it together? Second, what do you do if you are asked to explain to your friends and neighbors some NFL-related litigation that you haven't been following? We can't help you with the first problem (although, as an Iggles fan living in the heart of Patriots Nation, I feel your pain). As to the second problem, however, we've got you covered, at least when it comes to IP (and IPish) litigation. Laminate a copy of this handy summary, put it next to the guacamole dip, and you'll be able to field nearly any question that comes your way!

Blackhorse v. Pro-Football

If contentious trademark litigation were the stuff of championships, Washington and not Seattle would be headed to their second straight Super Bowl. After years of litigation over various "Washington Redskins" trademarks, in June the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) granted the petition of Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo activist, to cancel certain registrations owned by the team. The TTAB held that these marks ran afoul of 15 USC §1052(a), which bars the registration of trademarks "which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead." Our summary of the decision is available here. See Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 2014 TTAB LEXIS 231 (Trademark Trial and App. Bd. June 18, 2014).

A couple months later, the Washington team sought review in the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging the TTAB decision and arguing that the statute violates the First Amendment. After Blackhorse's motion to dismiss was denied, the Solicitor General of the United States moved to intervene in order to defend the constitutionality of the statute. See Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 166889 (E.D. Va. Nov. 25, 2014).

Super Bowl Shuffle Litigation Continues

Back in January, members of the "Shufflin' Crew," which includes former Chicago Bears Richard Dent, Jim McMahon and other players who participated in the 1985 "Super Bowl Shuffle" song and music video, brought an action in Illinois state court for declaratory judgment and other relief against the assignee of the rights to the video. The former players alleged that the purported assignment to the defendant was invalid, and therefore their performances were being exploited without authorization. The defendant removed to federal court and argued that the plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the Copyright Act.  The Court agreed with respect to the plaintiffs' declaratory judgment and conversion claims, and decided to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining counts. See Dent v. Renaissance Mktg. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152448 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2014).

Meanwhile, Don Levey, the photographer who took the picture on the cover of the Super Bowl Shuffle album, has been busy with his own litigation. In 2013, the Chicago Tribune reprinted the photograph, but did not include a credit to Levey – which had been printed on the back of the original album sleeve. Levey alleged that this omission amounted to the unlawful removal of "Copyright Management Information" under Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Tribune argued that such an analog notation could not as a matter of law fall within the DMCA's definition of "Copyright Management Information," but the Court disagreed and denied the Tribune's motion to dismiss. See Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC, 999 F.Supp.2d 1098 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

At the same time, Levey also brought copyright infringement claims against a Fox Sports-affiliated website that had used his photograph to illustrate a post about yet another lawsuit also involving the Super Bowl Shuffle (one starts to wonder if that song is more trouble than it's worth). In July, the Court rejected Levey's arguments that Fox was secondarily liable for publication of the photo, and also held that the defendant's utilization of the photograph was fair use. Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92809 (N.D. Ill. July 8, 2014).


Sarah Jones, a former Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader (or "Bengal"), brought defamation claims against TheDirty.com based on comments posted by anonymous users ("The Dirty Army"). The comments, which were allegedly encouraged by the website operators, included accusations that Jones was a sex addict with several venereal diseases who had "slept with [placekicker Shayne Graham and] every other Bengal Football player." The Eastern District of Kentucky held that, by encouraging actionable comments, the website owners were in effect content "developers" who had forfeited immunity from suit under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Sixth Circuit, however, held that this definition of "development" was too broad and reversed. According to the Court of Appeals, the website operators may have "encouraged" the "Dirty Army" to post "dirt," but they did not author the defamatory comments or materially contribute to their defamatory nature, so the website did not lose its Section 230 immunity. Jones v. Dirty World Entertainment LLC,755 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2014).

Right of Publicity Claims Against the NFL

In 2009, a group of 23 retired players — led by actor and former LA Rams defensive end Fred Dryer — brought a putative class action against NFL Films, which creates various documentaries and other programs about the NFL. The suit alleged that NFL Films' use of footage of games in which the class members appeared constituted a violation of their publicity rights under the laws of various states, including California, Texas, Minnesota and New York. After most of the class members settled, Dryer and a few others proceeded as individuals. In October, the District of Minnesota allowed the league's motion for summary judgment, holding that the use of the game footage was not commercial speech and in addition was protected by the "newsworthiness" and "consent" defenses applicable to common law right of publicity claims. See Dryer v. NFL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144362 (D. Minn. Oct. 10, 2014).

Also in 2014, several similar cases brought by retired players who had opted out of the class action settlement were transferred to Minnesota, including claims by Atlanta Falcon Woody Thompson, the estate of Oakland Raider John "Jack" Tatum and Houston Oiler Curley Culp. Thompson v. NFL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57018 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2014); Tatum v. NFL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57592 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2014); Culp v. NFL Prods. LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137172 (D.N.J. Sept. 29, 2014).

The NFL was also hit with a less successful right of publicity suit by sports marketer Angela Burgin. Burgin alleged that she had approached the NFL in 2011 about creating a social media project targeted at women, which ultimately became the NFL Women's Resource Initiative. Burgin was unhappy with the credit she received on the site: she claims the NFL misappropriated her idea and then without authorization listed her on the site as a "contributor" alongside her copyrighted photograph. In April, the Southern District of New York dismissed Burgin's right of publicity and Lanham Act claims on the grounds that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that the NFL had made commercial use of her name and likeness. The Court further held that the unauthorized use of the copyrighted photograph, which was up on the site for only about a week, was de minimis. See Burgin v. NFL, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61935 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2014).

Siri, How Can I Travel Back in Time?

In Gadh v. Spiegel, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6408 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014), the plaintiff claimed that the Spike Jonze film Her, the story of a relationship between a man and his "Siri-like" cell phone assistant, infringed the copyright to a sitcom screenplay about a similar relationship. The Court found that the two works were not substantially similar, in part because, while Her takes place in the future, the plaintiff's sitcom was clearly set in the past, as evidenced by an anachronistic reference to Brett Favre as the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers.

Madden NFL

EA Sports' Madden NFL computer game continued to keep the Northern District of California busy in 2014. Robin Antonick, the creator of the first version of the game, claims that subsequent versions were mere derivatives of his original code, thus contractually entitling him to additional compensation. On January 22, 2014, Judge Charles Breyer overturned a jury verdict in Antonick's favor, holding that Antonick – who no longer had a complete copy of the original source code – had failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine that the works "as a whole" (not just isolated elements) were substantially similar.  Our write-up of the case is available here. Antonick's appeal is pending before the Ninth Circuit. See Antonick v. Elec. Arts Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7924 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2014)

On January 6, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Northern District of California in another case related to the same video game. Several former players had alleged that their right of publicity was violated by the game's "historic teams" feature. The plaintiffs, such as LA Rams quarterback Vince Ferragamo and Cowboys tight end Billy Joe Dupree, claim that these "historic teams" included characters bearing their likenesses and/or exact statistics. EA Sports moved to dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds — the same First Amendment grounds that it had unsuccessfully asserted in Keller v. Electronic Arts, a similar case brought by former college football players over the NCAA version of the game. The Ninth Circuit held that its rulings in Keller – including that the game's use of the players' images was neither transformative nor incidental —   effectively precluded EA Sports from making the same arguments again. Davis v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 154 (9th Cir. Jan. 6, 2015).

Floyd Mayweather and the Money Team

During Super Bowl XLVII in New Orleans between the 49ers and the Ravens, the French Quarter-adjacent Wine Bistro restaurant sought to capitalize on the festivities by selling $50 tickets to a "Ball So Hard Super Bowl Kick-Off" party hosted by"Floyd Mayweather and the Money Team." The "Money Team" is the nickname for the boxer's  entourage, which apparently includes the likes of Justin Bieber, Lil Kim and 50 Cent. Sounds like fun, right?  Not to Mayweather, who claims he had never agreed to have any part of the event. Mayweather sued the Wine Bistro for trademark infringement, false advertising and violation of his right of publicity. The District of Nevada granted a default judgment — about $2,000 in damages plus attorneys' fees — after the Wine Bistro failed to answer. Mayweather v. Wine Bistro, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168720 (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2014).

T-Shirts and Other Licensed Products

Gronk Nation, a company owned by New England Patriots wide receiver Rob Gronkowski and his brothers, brought suit against a company selling t-shirts bearing the GRONK mark. The defendant moved to dismiss the Section 43(a) false endorsement claim on the grounds that it was selling "Gronk" t-shirts prior to the "first use" date listed in Gronk's GRONK registration. The District of Massachusetts denied the motion, holding that the critical inquiry was not the first use date, but whether the defendant was trading on Gronk's persona and goodwill in a manner likely to cause confusion. Gronk Nation, LLC v. Sully's Tees, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46797 (D. Mass. Apr. 4, 2014). And while we are on the topic of Gronk, we note that the bizarre romance novel A Gronking to Remember ("It was a passion that could not be spiked") was recently removed from Amazon, according to the Boston Globe, after complaints — possibly from the Patriots — that the book jacket featured an image of Gronk wearing his uniform and sporting a patch commemorating the late Myra Kraft.

The Patriots' bête noir, the New York Giants, didn't fare as well as Gronk with their own t-shirt dispute.  In July, the TTAB affirmed refusal of the Giants' application to register the mark G-MEN for t-shirts, on the grounds that it was likely to be confused with the GMAN SPORT mark for similar apparel. See In re: New York Football Giants, Inc., 2014 TTAB LEXIS 277 (Trademark Trial & App. Bd. July 3, 2014).

Meanwhile, a long-running antitrust licensing matter, one that has already paid a visit to the Supreme Court, continues to rage in the Northern District of Illinois. Prior to 2000, the NFL had granted non-exclusive licenses to apparel suppliers for the production of branded merchandise.  However, in 2000, the league entered into an exclusive licensing arrangement with Reebok, shutting out prior licensees like American Needle, which manufactures knit hats. American Needle filed suit against the NFL, Reebok and 30 NFL teams, claiming that this arrangement was an unlawful combination in violation of the Sherman Act. This April, the Court denied American Needle's motion for summary judgment because the NFL was able to demonstrate evidence of plausible procompetitive effects resulting from the Reebok license. However, the Court also denied the NFL's motion for summary judgment, rejecting the argument that the plaintiff's proposed market definition – the wholesale market for NFL trademarked hats – was improperly narrow because it excluded hats bearing the logos of teams in other sports. See American Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans La. Saints, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47527 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2014).  Similar claims in Dang v. S.F. 49ers, Ltd., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121344 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2014), a challenge to the same contract as a violation of California's Cartwright Act, also survived a motion to dismiss.

Other NFL licensing matters in 2014 included Action Ink, Inc. v. New York Jets, LLC,
576 Fed.Appx. 321 (5th Cir. 2014), in which the Fifth Circuit held that the plaintiff had abandoned its ULTIMATE FAN mark after about 20 years of non-use; Advanced Watch Co. v. Pennington, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149919 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2014), in which the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss Lanham Act and trade secret misappropriation claims between two watch manufacturers vying to make NFL-branded watches; and the descriptively-captioned United States v. Approximately 335 Counterfeit NFL Jerseys, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79093 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2014), in which the Court blessed the Department of Homeland Security's seizure of (guess approximately how many) counterfeit NFL jerseys.

Patent Disputes

In Inselberg v. New York Football Giants, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158479 (D. N.J. Nov. 10, 2014), a "self-described inventor" sued the New York Giants in state court for unfair competition and unjust enrichment, alleging that the team had misappropriated his patented "wireless audience participation" technology. The Giants removed the case to federal court on the grounds that the gravamen of the claim sounded in patent infringement, but the District of New Jersey — rejecting the recommendation of its Magistrate — granted the plaintiff's motion to remand.

Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57893 (N.D. Cal. April 24, 2014) is a dispute over what the Court describes as a "Veg-O-Matic" for "slicing and dicing" live data streams. Emblaze claimed, among other things, that certain video streaming technology used by Apple to deliver NFL preseason games infringed its patent. Apple argued on summary judgment that the claims with respect to the NFL stream should be dismissed because there was insufficient evidence as to who owned and operated the server that issued the stream, and Emblaze therefore was essentially speculating as to whether its technology was being infringed. The Court denied the motion, holding that while the evidentiary record presented by the plaintiff was not a "model of clarity," it included "just enough to squeak by."

Will the Real Jelani Jenkins Please Stand Up?

In Jenkins v. Lewis, 2014 UDRP LEXIS 1508 (WIPO June 23, 2014), Miami Dolphins rookie Jelani Jenkins initiated a WIPO arbitration proceeding to wrest control of jelanijenkins.com from Amy Lewis, a fellow Maryland resident who had tried to sell the site to Jenkins for $10,000. Lewis happens to be married to Kenneth Jenkins (no relation to Jelani), who was himself once an NFL running back. Lewis claimed that she and her husband had registered the domain name in 2008 in anticipation of having a child of that name. Lewis further alleged that she had no knowledge of the complainant at the time, who was just a high school student. However, the panel found that Jelani Jenkins was no ordinary high school student in 2008. Rather, he was a highly-touted and heavily-recruited athlete with a potentially lucrative future, and who was well-known in Maryland sports circles – circles which included Lewis. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that Lewis and/or her husband actually had a child named Jelani, the panel found that Lewis had registered the domain in 2008 in bad faith in order to exploit Jelani Jenkins' likely eventual success.

To view Foley Hoag's Trademark and Copyright Law Blog please click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
14 Dec 2017, Seminar, Boston, United States

The trustees of The Foley Hoag Foundation invite you to the upcoming Speaker Series event with David Friedman, Senior Vice President, Legal & Government Affairs of the Boston Red Sox.

15 Dec 2017, Seminar, Boston, United States

The New England Electricity Restructuring Roundtable has been meeting bimonthly since 1995 to discuss current topics related to important changes in the electric power industry in Massachusetts and throughout New England.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.