ARTICLE
25 August 2026

Patrick Mahomes & Travis Kelce 1587 Lawsuit Isn’t What ‘Most People Assume,’ Legal Expert Says

GG
Greenberg Glusker LLP

Contributor

Greenberg Glusker is a full-service law firm serving the needs of businesses, organizations, and individuals globally for over 65 years. Our wide variety of practice areas include: Bankruptcy, Reorganization & Capital Recovery; Corporate; Cybersecurity & Data Privacy; Employment; Entertainment; Environment; Intellectual Property; International; Litigation; Private Client Services; Real Estate; and Tax.
NFL stars Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce face a lawsuit connected to their 1587 Prime steakhouse, but the legal battle centers on corporate structure and jurisdiction rather than trademark infringement. Litigation expert James Molen breaks down the key arguments and what could determine whether the athletes remain defendants in this case.
United States Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
James Molen’s articles from Greenberg Glusker LLP are most popular:
  • within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
  • with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
  • in United States
  • with readers working within the Business & Consumer Services and Insurance industries

Litigation Partner James Molen shared his insights with Heavy about a lawsuit involving Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce tied to their 1587 Prime steakhouse.

Excerpts:

“At the current stage of the proceeding, this case isn’t the trademark fight most people assume it is — it’s a fight over how close two celebrity investors have to be to a business before a court can drag them into it personally,” Molen said.

“Mahomes and Kelce’s primary argument is that they’re several corporate layers removed from the restaurant’s operating LLC and never personally touched a New York transaction, while the plaintiff says their jersey numbers are the mark, which makes them ‘moving forces’ by definition,” Molen explained.

“While I can’t predict the outcome, here’s what’s worth watching: the athletes’ motion raises three separate grounds for dismissal — no personal jurisdiction, wrong venue, and failure to state a claim — and any one of those, if the court agrees, could result in dismissal,” Molen said.

“But the plaintiff only really engages with the failure to state a claim, leaving the jurisdiction and venue arguments essentially unanswered,” Molen said. “That’s likely to come up in the athletes’ reply brief, and courts generally don’t look kindly on unaddressed arguments.”

Resources

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.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More