The Miami Heat sent shockwaves of speculation and excitement through South Florida with their recent trademark filing  for a new “Heat” wordmark—a mark heavily influenced by the fan-favorite “ Vice ” theme. This new wordmark, which features “Heat” in the iconic, neon-style script used by the Vice jerseys since their debut  in the 2017–18 season, has led fans and trademark attorneys alike to wonder  if this move is simply routine intellectual property protection or a sign of a more permanent shift in the team’s branding and future look.   The organization filed their original trademark application on August 27, 2025. This filing marked the first time the team has officially trademarked a “Heat” version of the Vice lettering, as the Heat’s previous five Vice-themed “City Edition” uniforms had all featured  “Miami” on the jersey chest. The city’s love  for the Vice uniforms is well-documented and longstanding—the original “Vice” uniform, which draws its inspiration from the neon signage at the former Miami Arena, was even so popular that it was brought back to replace  both the Heat’s white “Association Edition” and blood red “Culture” City Edition uniforms for the last stretch of the 2024–25 season. The wild popularity of the Vice uniforms combined with the new trademark filing are the strongest indicators yet that the Heat might be considering a full rebrand, choosing to integrate the Vice aesthetic into their core identity in an attempt to capitalize on fan demand. These rumors were further fueled by a second application  on September 9, 2025, this time using the Vice colorway—highlighting the Heat’s efforts to make these colors an even larger part of their brand.   While a rebrand is indeed a possibility, it’s equally important to note that teams will often apply for trademarks as an anticipatory measure to protect  their organizational intellectual property. This new wordmark could be used for a variety of purposes: for merchandise, a long-term branding strategy, or merely to prevent other users from profiting off of the team’s incredibly popular design. No matter what, it’s clear this filing goes beyond a hint at a future jersey and is instead a calculated legal step to secure (and potentially expand) one of the franchise’s most valuable assets.   The Filing: An “Intent-to-Use” Application The Heat’s trademark application was filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), presumably using what is known as an “ Intent-to-Use ” (ITU) application under the Lanham Act’s Section 1(b). This is a crucial step to securing trademark protection, as an ITU application allows  a party to place a trademark on reserve based on a sincere good faith intention to use it in commerce in the near future. Effectively, the filer is putting a hold on the mark so other users do not get to use it or register it as the ITU applicant completes their business plans for their intellectual property.   For the Heat, this allows them to not have to rush the release of a product featuring their new wordmark in the near future because the filing in itself is a declaration of their plans and gives them an early date of rights against future applicants. For the trademark to achieve full registration in the future, the Heat will ultimately have to prove “ use in commerce ,” which is done by selling goods like jerseys and merchandise bearing the mark.   A Two-Pronged Strategy: Protect the Brand While Pushing Commercial Expansion From a legal perspective, the Heat’s trademark application serves both defensive and offensive functions in terms of the team’s brand strategy. Defensively, the Heat are protecting their brand equity. The “Vice” campaign has been a commercial juggernaut for the organization, creating an immense amount of brand equity. Generally speaking, the fundamental legal purpose of a trademark is to act as a source identifier  protecting against consumer confusion. By filing for the “Heat” Vice wordmark, the organization is bolstering the tools they have at hand in their legal arsenal against unlicensed merchandise and counterfeiters. The application filing expands the team’s protected intellectual property, which will make it easier to issue cease-and-desist letters and pursue litigation against infringers of their popular aesthetic in the future—proactively fencing in their brand and protecting the revenue streams generated by it. The recent filing of a second application is similarly vital, since whenever a mark is altered, a new trademark must be filed to document the adjustments. Here, the Heat seem to be working diligently to protect their Vice marks, including any updates as they continue to develop this aspect of their team branding.   On the offensive end, the Heat are also paving the way for a potential future rebrand. As mentioned above, while the previous “Miami” Vice wordmarks are all protected, this is the first time the Heat name itself has been seen in the Vice script. Securing this trademark will be a critical first step before the wordmark could ever appear on an official NBA “Icon” or “Association” edition jersey, potentially signaling a full team rebrand. Without having this registered trademark, any such move would leave a core piece of the team’s new identity in legal jeopardy.   A Look at the Heat’s Other Marks The Miami Heat Limited Partnership owns  a wide variety of trademarks, which include the original “Miami” Vice wordmark, the standard “HEAT” mark used since 1999, “HEAT CULTURE” and “EL HEAT CULTURA,” “COURT CULTURE,” the number 35, and the full post-1999 Ball and Hoop logo with “MIAMI HEAT” beneath it, among many others.   Pat Riley, the “Trademark King” Beyond trademarks owned by the Heat, team President Pat Riley is famous  in his own right for his intellectual property endeavors. Riley notoriously  owns the trademark for the phrase “three-peat,” a term he began using in the late 1980s while he coached several incredible Los Angeles Lakers teams. Riley’s company, Riles & Company, Inc., owns  at least six live trademarks for variations of the phrase, allowing him to cover a wide variety of merchandise.   Famously, Riley also has a history of licensing the “three-peat” trademark to teams on the cusp of winning their third straight championship, mandating that a portion of the proceeds often go to charity . Savvy business moves like this one have led him to be viewed as a sort of “trademark king,” a testament to Riley’s sharp understanding  of intellectual property and branding extending far beyond the basketball court.   Whether the new “Heat” wordmark is a sign of a full-on reshuffling of the team identity or simply a smart business move, one thing is for certain: both the Miami Heat and their executive leadership are always looking for ways to innovate and stay ahead of the curve—both on and off of the court.   Oliver Canning is a 3L at the University of Miami School of Law. He can be followed on Twitter (X) @OCanning and found on LinkedIn.

Introduction Elite athletes can be franchise-changing, but when off-court demands swing into the extraordinary, GCs must tread carefully. The Kawhi Leonard saga, marked by no-show deals, ownership stakes, and endorsements with minimal obligations, offers a vital case study. Striking a balance between acquiring talent and safeguarding integrity, compliance, and long-term reputation is critical. In many organizations, General Counsel may not have a direct seat at the table when player contracts are negotiated as that role often belongs to the General Manager, President of Operations, or another senior executive depending on the team’s management structure. However, the GC should still be clued in, especially when unconventional or high-risk demands surface. Even if legal is not directly negotiating the deal, compliance with league rules and corporate governance requirements remains a legal function. When things go wrong, the fallout isn’t limited to sport operations, it becomes an organizational crisis, with potential financial penalties, sanctions, and reputational damage. These risks can be mitigated by ensuring that all relevant stakeholders, including the GC, are informed and involved early in the process. This article serves as a brief primer for GCs, Associate GCs, and other Compliance and Risk Management components to a sports organization/team of issues that may arise in contract negotiations.   Know Where the Line Is…and Don’t Cross It Key Insight: Kawhi Leonard’s camp (via his uncle, Dennis Robertson) reportedly requested a partial ownership stake in the Toronto Maple Leafs and other MLSE-affiliated companies, plus $10 million per year in “no-show” sponsorship income, essentially endorsements without any promotional or appearance obligations [1] . Implications: Ownership requests tied to team parent companies may exceed what leagues and corporate governance allow. 'No-show' income, even outside standard contracts, may trigger legal and ethical scrutiny from league bodies. Action Steps for GCs and Associate CGCs: Maintain an up-to-date understanding of league rules governing permissible compensation and benefits. Establish internal policies for evaluating off-court offers, ensuring full transparency and compliance. Don’t Undermine Promotional Obligations Key Insight: Leonard's camp reportedly stated, “We don’t want to do anything,” rejecting promotional activity while expecting substantial compensation. Implications: Offers structured to require no effort from the talent may look suspiciously like cap circumvention. Such agreements risk league action, as seen with this year’s NBA investigation into a $28 million “no-show” deal with Aspiration. Action Steps: Any endorsement or sponsorship compensation must be tied to verifiable deliverables i.e., appearances, promotional content, etc. Ensure agreements include enforceable performance clauses with measured deliverables. Evaluate Requests Through a Governance Lens Key Insight : Some of Leonard's demands mirrored what he later allegedly received via Aspiration, raising eyebrows about patterns across negotiations. Implications: Recurring patterns of high-level off-court requests suggest possible strategies to evade compensation limits, albeit informally. Failing to scrutinize such demands may expose the organization to regulatory risk. Action Steps: Consult procurement, compliance, and legal teams before entertaining unconventional proposals. Insist on documented rationales and compliance reviews before entering unusual agreement structures. Leverage Firmness as a Negotiation Tool Key Insight: The Raptors ultimately declined the ownership and no-show sponsorship proposals, while the Clippers opted for a different path and, consequently, now face an investigation. Implications : A principled approach can protect both reputation and financial fairness. Some teams may capitulate and risk long-term consequences. Action Steps : Set clear limits in advance: e.g., “No ownership requests; endorsements must require deliverables.” Consider conditional offers: e.g., a performance bonus only if off-court obligations are fully met. Build a Compliance-First Framework Components to Include: Strict Internal Approval Protocols: Ensure non-standard proposals pass legal, compliance, and leadership review Deliverable-Based Agreements: Define specific, verifiable expectations tied to compensation Audit and Reporting Mechanisms – Highlight off-field agreements in regular oversight reports Education & Training: Keep front-office personnel and agents informed about permissible compensation types Goal : Mitigate risk while still offering attractive packages; favor transparency and enforceability. Communication Is Key Best Practices: Tactfully push back on “no-show” proposals: “We’re happy to connect you with sponsors provided there’s a clear agreement for promotional activity.” Use negotiation as an opportunity to set tone: "We value your talent; we just need mutual accountability." Monitor the Broader Landscape Why It Matters: The Kawhi-Aspiration investigation remains active, with possible penalties including fines or pick forfeitures. Historical precedent (e.g. Timberwolves–Joe Smith case) highlights long-term risks of hidden agreements. Action Steps: Stay informed on ongoing league rulings and investigations. Adapt internal policies promptly when enforcement thresholds shift. Conclusion: Win Without Losing In elite athlete negotiations, structure matters as much as star power. By embedding compliance, transparency, and enforceability into every deal, GCs can help their organizations secure top-tier talent without sacrificing integrity or exposing themselves to avoidable risk.   Stephon Burton, aka “Your Favorite Creator’s Favorite Lawyer,” is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment. He can be contacted via email at [email protected] , or on LinkedIn  and X (formerly Twitter) .   [1] For further reading, see: Doug Smith, 'Inside Kawhi Leonard’s bizarre list of secret demands from Raptors and how they line up with Clippers scandal,' Toronto Star, September 9, 2025. Available at: https://www.thestar.com/sports/raptors/inside-kawhi-leonard-s-bizarre-list-of-secret-demands-from-raptors-and-how-they-line/article_9f1b0398-0ebd-4193-bc06-798efda95023.html (note: article is behind a paywall; a subscription is required to access the full text).

In a bombshell revelation on September 3, 2025, investigative reporter Pablo Torre alleged that the Los Angeles Clippers and Kawhi Leonard may have orchestrated a $28 million “no‑show” endorsement agreement with a now‑bankrupt entity, Aspiration, Inc., a purported tree‑planting firm. The deal, structured via Leonard’s own LLC (KL2 Aspire LLC), reportedly entailed $7 million annually from 2022 to 2025, despite there being no public promotion or endorsement activity by Leonard, and a termination clause tied to his Clippers status. Interestingly enough, Clippers owner Steve Ballmer financially backed Aspiration with $50 million, suggesting a potential avenue to funnel compensation outside the NBA’s salary cap framework. To get a better understanding of what’s going on, first we have to understand what an endorsement deal is. An endorsement deal is a type of agreement where a company pays an athlete, entertainer, or other public figure to promote its products or services. In return, the individual allows the company to use their name, image, likeness, or reputation in advertising, marketing, or product placement. These deals can involve things like appearing in commercials, posting on social media, wearing branded gear, or making public appearances on behalf of the brand. At their core, endorsement agreements are about leveraging the credibility and popularity of the individual to boost consumer trust and sales for the company. What Do Typical Endorsement Deals Look Like? Performance & Exposure Based: Customarily, athlete-brand contracts tie compensation to promotional activities i.e. appearances, ads, social media, event participation, and use of name/image. The athlete is contractually obligated to endorse publicly and positively. Fair Market Value Evaluation: Brands pay rates proportional to an athlete’s visibility, draw, and performance metrics. Agencies bargain based on expected ROI and media reach. Compliance with League Rules: In the NBA, the league must be notified of significant third-party deals, and compensation exceeding market value (or contingent upon on-court decisions) risks violating tampering or cap‑circumvention rules. How Does Kawhi’s Deal Differ? No Deliverables: Reports suggest Leonard didn’t promote Aspiration, likely not doing interviews, ads, or appearances. Back‑door Financing: Ballmer’s injection into Aspiration appears timed to give a compensation vehicle disconnected from the NBA's official salary structure. In‑League Ties: The deal tied its continuation to Leonard’s tenure with the Clippers, raising alarms for dependency upon team association. Fake or Inflated Contracts: The endorsement seems disconnected from typical branding functions, instead serving as a workaround for cap limitations. What Should One Watch For in Endorsement Deals (Especially Athlete/Team Linked)? Tangible Deliverables: Any deal should include clear duties: media appearances, social media, photoshoots, public appearances, brand usage, or community events. Market Value Calibration: Compensation must reflect industry standards, not inflated to mask cap circumvention. Contracts should be reviewed by independent valuation experts when in doubt. Disclosure and Oversight: League offices, union representatives, and possibly third-party compliance audits should verify that the deal isn’t lurking outside official salary compliance Term and Termination Clarity: Watch for clauses that terminate when the athlete leaves the team, raising concerns about conditional compensation tied to roster status rather than performance or branding value. Independence from Ownership Structures: Deals structured via companies funded or controlled by team owners should raise immediate suspicion due to conflicts and potential for foul‑play. Red Flags to Signal Caution or Investigation “No‑Show” Clauses: Payment without performance or public promotion. Back‑door Funnel via Shell Companies: Funds routed through obscure LLCs without transparency. Owner‑Controlled Sponsorship Shells: If the owner or entity tied to the team finances the brand or endorsement company, that’s a glaring conflict. Termination Link to Player’s Team Status: Raises questions of conditional compliance. Bankruptcy or Legal Fallout: If the endorsement partner faces legal or financial collapse, it may expose deeper issues. Historical Parallel: The Timberwolves–Joe Smith Case The Clippers’ situation echoes one of the most infamous salary‑cap circumvention cases in NBA history. In 2000, the Minnesota Timberwolves were discovered to have a secret agreement with forward Joe Smith. The deal promised Smith below‑market contracts for several years in exchange for a lucrative long‑term contract later, circumventing the NBA’s salary cap. Once exposed, the NBA levied one of the harshest penalties in league history: a $3.5 million fine and the forfeiture of five first‑round draft picks. Smith’s contract was voided, and the scandal remains a cautionary tale about hidden compensation mechanisms. The alleged Kawhi‑Clippers endorsement arrangement differs in its structure. The money flows through a third‑party company rather than a direct player‑team promise, but the underlying principle is similar: the use of off‑books or artificial arrangements to deliver compensation beyond what the salary cap allows. For lawyers, agents, and compliance professionals, both cases highlight the vital importance of transparency and adherence to league rules when structuring deals that may overlap with player salaries. If Torre’s report holds, the $28 million “endorsement” with Aspiration appears less like a legitimate branding campaign and more like a salary-cap end‑run disguised as a marketing deal. For sports‑law practitioners, it underscores why rigorous review and transparency are essential in endorsement contract design, especially when the contracting entity is tied to team ownership. This debacle can serve as a cautionary case: endorsement contracts must reflect actual promotional work, be clearly separate from team compensation, and withstand scrutiny both from league compliance and public ethics standards. It’s the only way that the integrity of athlete branding, and league financial fairness can be preserved.   Stephon Burton is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment. He can be contacted on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) .

When the NHL’s newest franchise in Salt Lake City unveiled its permanent identity as the Utah Mammoth, it was supposed to be a moment of clarity. After months of speculation and temporary branding as “Utah Hockey Club,” the Smith Entertainment Group finally planted its flag with a name, colors, and logo that it believed would carry the franchise into its future. Ironically, almost as soon as the new identity went public, the franchise found itself staring down a different opponent, not on the ice, but in court. The Dispute Emerges Enter Mammoth Hockey LLC, an Oregon-based company that has been manufacturing hockey bags and related gear since 2014. Though it never obtained a federal trademark registration, the company claims common-law trademark rights in the “Mammoth” name, citing years of use in commerce within the hockey space. In June 2025, Mammoth Hockey sent a cease-and-desist letter to the NHL club, warning that the “Utah Mammoth” name and branding risked confusing consumers into believing that the two entities were related. Rather than backing down, the franchise took the offensive. On August 1, 2025, Smith Entertainment Group and UYTE, LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, asking a judge to confirm that their team’s name and logo do not infringe on Mammoth Hockey’s rights. Key Legal Issues This dispute raises several legal issues that go beyond just hockey fans and merchandise: Common-Law vs. Federal Registration: Trademark rights in the U.S. can arise from actual use in commerce, even without a federal registration. Mammoth Hockey has leaned heavily on this doctrine. The Utah Mammoth, however, argue that federal protection and distinct branding give them the upper hand. Likelihood of Confusion: The heart of any trademark dispute is whether consumers are likely to be confused. Does a hockey bag company operating primarily online or in retail channels conflict with a professional NHL franchise selling tickets, jerseys, and fan gear? Courts will weigh the overlap. Market Expansion: Even if the two don’t directly compete today, what happens if Mammoth Hockey grows into apparel, or if the NHL team launches its own line of bags and gear? Judges often look at whether brand owners might reasonably expand into each other’s spaces. What makes this case especially interesting is Mammoth Hockey’s prior stance. Reports indicate that the company originally expressed support for the “Mammoth” name and even floated the idea of collaborating. Only later did its posture shift to opposition. That inconsistency may weigh in the franchise’s favor, especially if evidence shows the team relied on the company’s earlier signals in moving forward with the branding. Lessons for the Industry This isn’t just a squabble between a local bag maker and a pro franchise. It underscores broader themes for general counsel across sports and entertainment: Do the Clearance Work: Even massive organizations can end up in disputes if they underestimate the reach of smaller companies’ common-law rights. Clearance searches should go beyond the federal registry. Brand Expansion is Predictable: Courts expect brands to grow beyond their immediate products. A General Counsel should always think two or three moves ahead…a bag company today can be an apparel company tomorrow. Perception Matters: Mixed messaging from a potential challenger (like initial support followed by litigation threats) can create legal leverage, but it also complicates negotiations. Documenting every communication becomes critical. What’s Next As of mid-August, Mammoth Hockey has been served but no hearings have been scheduled. The case will likely hinge on whether a court believes consumers could mistake a professional NHL team for an equipment bag maker, and how much weight to give to Mammoth Hockey’s years of use versus the franchise’s new high-profile identity. For now, the Mammoth are set to skate into their inaugural season under their contested name. Whether the courts allow that name to stick long-term remains to be seen.   Stephon Burton is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment. He can be contacted via email at [email protected] , or on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter) .

On any given night at the US Open, the broadcast cuts from what looks like a Met Gala after-party to a sea of pink cups raised just as often as tennis racquets. Those cups hold the tournament’s unofficial MVP, the HONEY DEUCE. Part cocktail, part status symbol, the mix of Grey Goose vodka, raspberry liqueur, lemonade, and honeydew melon “tennis balls” has become as iconic in New York as the matches themselves. And the numbers prove it. In 2024, fans downed more than 550,000 HONEY DEUCES, pouring over $12.8 million into the US Open’s tills. Since their debut in 2007, sales have soared past 2.8 million cocktails, at an eye-watering $23 each. That is one drink sold every 1.5 seconds during the tournament. Not bad for a vodka lemonade with a clever garnish. HONEY DEUCE is not just a catchy phrase; it is a registered trademark owned by the United States Tennis Association (USTA). Grey Goose has a licensing agreement that allows them to market HONEY DEUCE as the “official cocktail of the US Open,” but the legal rights to the name sit with the tournament itself. From a trademark perspective, the name is fantastic. “Honey” signals something sweet and fun even though there is not a drop of honey in the drink. Then “Deuce” ties directly to tennis, where a tied score is called a deuce. Together, it creates a mark that is playful and immediately tied to the sport. On the trademark distinctiveness scale, HONEY DEUCE would be considered suggestive, where it does not describe the cocktail outright, but nudges you to make the connection between sweetness and tennis. Suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and strong, which typically gives those marks a favorable position to be registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USTA has even extended protection by filing a USPTO application for HONEY DEUCE on merchandise like shirts and hats. Similar to how the mint julep has become inseparable from the Kentucky Derby or how strawberries and cream are Wimbledon traditions. The HONEY DEUCE now sits in that same category. The pink cup in hand cements source identity in fans’ minds. Every time a spectator posts a courtside photo with the drink, they reinforce that this specific name, look, and experience come from the US Open. That consistent, event-tied use builds distinctiveness and ultimately makes the HONEY DEUCE trademark stronger. The HONEY DEUCE trademark registration does not only preserve tradition, but it also creates new opportunities. The USTA owns the mark, so they have the power to license HONEY DEUCE in ways that could make the drink even more profitable. Imagine official pop-ups in New York during the Open or sanctioned HONEY DEUCE cans sold nationwide. Those expansions would only be possible because the trademark registration gives USTA control. Without a registered mark, the HONEY DEUCE would just be another cocktail. Now the drink is a multi-million-dollar brand asset that can be strategically licensed, managed, and grown. The HONEY DEUCE shows how branding and experience can work hand in hand. A cocktail with no honey and a simple garnish has become a global talking point because it’s tied to a world-class event and protected by trademark law. It is living proof that when a name is memorable and safeguarded, it can grow into something far bigger than the product itself.

Baseball has always thrived on rivalries: Yankees–Red Sox, Dodgers–Giants, Cubs–Cardinals. These matchups don’t just fill stadiums; they fuel headlines, drive TV ratings, and keep casual fans invested. At the Little League Classic, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred dropped a notable hint: if MLB expands, it could spark a sweeping geographic realignment, possibly dissolving the well-established American and National Leagues in favor of an East/West conference model that mirrors the NBA or NHL. For a league built on tradition, this would be its boldest structural shift since the pitch clock. Manfred framed expansion as a way to “save a lot of wear and tear on our players in terms of travel,”  while giving ESPN and other partners crisp East vs. West playoff matchups. But the implications run deeper. Realignment wouldn’t just adjust travel schedules; it could redefine rivalries and supercharge the business of baseball. An East/West structure wouldn’t just reduce travel, it would concentrate historic rivalries into single conferences, creating higher-stakes matchups throughout the season. Expansion has long remained a back burner idea. Yet it may be baseball’s best chance to reset its trajectory. Rivalries Drive Relevance An East/West conference model would give MLB a rare chance to double down on its rivalry-driven formula, while setting up new franchises for success. Imagine a Portland team dropping straight into an instant rivalry with Seattle, or a Nashville franchise locked in early battles with Atlanta. That’s what makes realignment so powerful: it doesn’t just change schedules; it creates storylines that sell themselves. The NHL’s success with Vegas and Seattle proves the model works. By aligning expansion teams with natural regional rivals, the league gave them immediate identity, relevance, and value. MLB has an even bigger opportunity. With carefully crafted conference rivalries, it can amplify fan passion, boost national TV appeal, and deliver the kind of must-watch matchups that keep baseball culturally relevant in an increasingly crowded sports landscape. Rivalries as the Growth Engine MLB’s balanced schedule is more than a tweak; it’s a strategic necessity. Other leagues, especially the NFL and NBA, have leaned into rivalries and star matchups to fuel growth. Baseball can no longer afford to lag. The league’s financial reality underscores the point. MLB revenue ( $12.1B ) trailed the NBA’s ( $11.3B ) and NFL’s ( $23B ) in 2024, and younger fans are drifting toward faster-paced sports. Expanding rivalry games is one of the few levers MLB can pull to recapture attention in a crowded entertainment landscape. Imagine Mets–Yankees and Cubs–White Sox clashing in meaningful series across the calendar. Add Ohtani facing his former Angels multiple times a season, and these aren’t just games; they’re storylines that sustain engagement.   Rivalries   create must-see TV, and must-see TV creates revenue. The data backs this up. In the   Subway Series   finale, peak viewership topped 3 million, making it the most-watched Sunday Night Baseball game in seven years. Dodgers–Giants games consistently rank among MLB’s highest-grossing gate receipts, often selling out regardless of standings. Rivalries don’t just create buzz; they drive ticket, merchandise, and media revenue. Proof of Concept: The NHL Model If MLB wants proof that expansion and realignment can be a growth engine, it doesn’t need to reinvent the wheel; it just needs to look at the NHL. In 2014, the NHL realigned  its divisions to prioritize geographic rivalries, grouping teams more regionally to cut travel and boost local intensity. The result was a schedule packed with rivalry-driven matchups that consistently delivered higher ratings and stronger fan engagement. That groundwork made the league’s recent expansions seamless. When the Vegas Golden Knights launched in 2017, they sold out consistently, built an instant identity, and are now valued at over $1 billion just seven years after joining the league. The Seattle Kraken followed in 2021, tapping into a ready-made regional rivalry with Vancouver and sparking another passionate fan base. NHL franchise values  jumped 44% in 2024, growth that outpaced basketball and football.  The NHL proved how strategic realignment can turn expansion into opportunity. Now MLB has a chance to take it even further: adopting an East/West model could supercharge rivalries, give new franchises instant relevance, and deliver the matchups fans and media crave. In today’s crowded sports landscape, this might be baseball’s best shot at its biggest growth era in decades. Just as the NHL’s divisional shift made Vegas–Vancouver and Seattle–Vancouver natural rivalries, MLB’s East/West structure would place expansion teams in rivalry-rich regions from day one, igniting fan engagement and maximizing media impact. Legal Implications of Expansion and Realignment But for MLB, bold moves come with high legal stakes, from territorial rights to billion-dollar media deals, making the legal landscape as critical as the business one. MLB’s unique   antitrust exemption , upheld in Flood v. Kuhn (1972) , gives the league rare power over territorial rights, franchise moves, and scheduling. But that power cuts both ways. Drop an expansion team into the wrong market or disrupt a billion-dollar regional TV deal, and suddenly that exemption looks less like a shield and more like a target. We’ve already seen how ugly these fights can get. In   San Jose v. MLB (2013) , the city sued after the league blocked the Oakland A’s move to San Jose, arguing MLB’s territorial rules were anti-competitive. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the antitrust and unfair competition claims , leaving MLB’s exemption intact, but the case underscored just how explosive relocation battles can become. But cities aren’t the only stakeholders. Regional sports networks (RSNs) pay massive sums for exclusive broadcast territories, and realignment could scramble those boundaries overnight. If an expansion team lands in a market that overlaps existing contracts, think Nashville cutting into Atlanta’s TV reach, RSNs like Bally Sports or YES Network could sue to protect their rights.  That risk is amplified by the financial instability many RSNs already face due to cord-cutting and subscription losses.  There are also potential marketing and branding risks. Recent controversies across sports, from missteps in NIL marketing in college athletics to disputes over team trademarks, show how quickly public perception can turn into a legal or regulatory problem. Expansion franchises would need airtight intellectual property strategies to avoid conflicts with existing brands. At the same time, the league as a whole would face increased scrutiny over how it sells and packages new rivalries. Closing Pitch: Rivalries Are MLB’s Real Expansion Playbook Baseball has always sold itself on tradition: the timeless rivalries, the summer rituals, the comfort of knowing which teams belong where. But in an era dominated by the NBA and NFL, tradition alone can’t capture attention. Expansion is coming, but adding new teams isn’t enough — MLB needs a structural reset. Adopting an East/West conference model would concentrate historic rivalries, give expansion franchises instant relevance, and deliver marquee matchups that drive engagement, ticket sales, and media value. Realignment isn’t just about geography; it’s about giving MLB the tools to control its competitive, cultural, and financial future. Preserving tradition while unlocking unprecedented growth opportunities for a modern audience. Oliver Stevens 1L at Hofstra Law. You can find him on LinkedIn .

Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) fans celebrated a win outside of the main card last week, as UFC announced a major media rights agreement with Paramount that puts the traditional Pay-Per-View (PPV) distribution model on the ropes.  Last Monday, TKO Group Holdings, UFC’s parent company, and Paramount unveiled a whopping seven-year media rights agreement to make Paramount the new exclusive  home of all UFC events in the United States. Beginning in 2026, the full slate of the UFC’s 13 numbered events – which feature high-profile fighters, like last week’s UFC 319: Du Plessis v. Chimaev – and 30 Fight Night cards, often headlined by rising contenders and up-and-coming talent, will be made available to viewers on the Paramount+ streaming platform. UFC adopted the PPV model at its inception in 1993 and ultimately evolved into what is today the largest PPV event provider in the world . UFC’s PPV era has been driven by iconic fighters and marquee matchups and began thriving in the mid-2000s, particularly after the debut of The Ultimate Fighter  in 2005, the reality TV series that brought Mixed Martial Arts into the mainstream. In 2013, UFC turned toward digital platforms and launched UFC FIGHT PASS® , one of the world’s largest streaming services for combat sports offering live and on-demand content to fans around the world. Over the years, UFC secured landmark broadcasting deals, from its early media rights agreement with Fox Sports Media Group  in 2011 to the multiyear contract with ESPN and ESPN+  in 2019 to bring UFC Fight Night events to viewers through a monthly ESPN+ subscription fee while still reserving big, numbered events, like UFC 319, for traditional PPV. In 2026, UFC fans in the United States will gain access to all UFC events through a Paramount+ subscription, with no additional PPV charges, and enjoy select events live on CBS. UFC President Dana White has even suggested that among the potential events to air on CBS is the proposed UFC card on the White House lawn  on July 4, 2026 to mark the 250th anniversary of the United States. The UFC-Paramount deal is not entirely unprecedented. It follows Turki Alalshikh’s announcement earlier this year that all Riyadh Season and The Ring boxing events in Saudi Arabia will be free to subscribers of DAZN, an international sports streaming service, beginning in November 2025. “We have [a] big vision to grow boxing and decide[d]: No More Pay-Per-View,” Alalshikh posted on X . Together, these moves suggest a broader trend toward leaving the PPV model that has long dominated major combat sports broadcasts behind . As for the fighters, UFC’s shift away from the PPV model in 2026 could also impact how fighters share in event revenue. Cu rrently, top UFC athletes earn a percentage of the revenue generated from PPV sales, or “PPV points,” for the events they compete in. Headliners and champions in particular negotiate PPV points as part of their contracts, as these can significantly boost earnings for fighters on high-selling cards and even exceed the guaranteed base purse fighters receive just for showing up to the fight. Legendary UFC fighter George St-Pierre, who was a major draw for UFC PPV events during his career, told Covers that while the Paramount deal may be good for the UFC as a promoter, it could reduce fighters’ leverage during contract negotiations. “When I was competing, I was able to have a great argument to negotiate on my contract,” St-Pierre explained. “I could tell the UFC, ‘Hey, if you want me to do all the promotion, I want to become a partner. I want a piece of the pie,’ to negotiate a part of the Pay-Per-View revenue.” However, when asked about fighter pay at a Post-Fight Press Conference last Tuesday, White told reporters: “It’s August and we have until January to figure all that stuff out. But the low hanging fruit that’s easy to answer? Bonuses are obviously going up.” Although the fate of the PPV point system is uncertain, UFC’s move from PPV to Paramount+ could offer fighters greater exposure, new and lucrative sponsorship opportunities, and possibly even a slice of the anticipated increase in revenue for the UFC. Still, while Paramount and UFC work out the details of the agreement, PPV may not be entirely out of the fight, as White acknowledged that “something could  be a PPV, still.” Ultimately, many aspects of the deal, including whether Paramount will adjust its current subscription pricing upon carrying UFC content in 2026, are yet to be determined. But, as White stated in a post on X , there’s one thing fans can be certain of: “This deal puts UFC amongst the biggest sports in the world.”   Nancy Mouradian earned her J.D. from Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law and served as Editor-in-Chief of the Pepperdine Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship, and the Law.

The WNBA is arguably the most openly queer professional sports league in the world, and not just by the numbers. Without athletes like Brittney Griner, Breanna Stewart, Alyssa Thomas, DiJonai Carrington, and many others at the forefront of both athletic performance and social advocacy, the W has fostered a cultural ecosystem where queerness is not just tolerated but centered. But while this visibility has become a hallmark of the league’s brand, the legal infrastructure behind that visibility is far less robust than fans may think. When Identity Becomes Labor The legal impact of LGBTQ+ visibility in the WNBA starts with the fundamental issue of labor protection. While the league projects itself as inclusive, it operates in the private sector, meaning Title VII protections apply, but only to the extent they’re enforced. In Bostock v. Clayton County  (2020) , the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on sex-based discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity. That ruling gave queer players a stronger federal legal shield, but the reality of enforcement within tight-knit and heavily scrutinized professional leagues is vague at best. Unlike some corporate environments that quietly adopt expansive anti-discrimination policies post- Bostock , the WNBA leans into its LGBTQ+ image as a selling point. But being “out” isn't just an identity in the WNBA – it’s a component of many players' public brand, sponsorship value, and off-court revenue, which, in turn, creates a labor condition where queerness becomes part of the job. From a legal standpoint, that makes speech protections, privacy rights, and the boundaries of personal identity at work far more complex. Navigating Expression in a Private League For many of these queer players, it’s not just about who they are, but what they stand for. Natasha Cloud wrote an op-ed in The Players’ Tribune  calling for white players to step up on racial justice. Brittney Griner’s detention in Russia became a geopolitical crisis. Sue Bird’s public relationship with Megan Rapinoe helped shift cultural norms about female athleticism, leadership, and love. But personal advocacy doesn’t always come with formal protections. The WNBA is a private league, so its players don’t benefit from First Amendment protections in the workplace. Speech rights are instead negotiated through collective bargaining. And while the current CBA offers some flexibility, the boundaries between “player conduct” and “personal expression” remain blurry. Worst-case scenario: a player's queer identity or political beliefs are reframed by management as a “distraction” or grounds for discipline in contract renewals or media obligations. The line between advocacy and professionalism becomes even more strained in a media environment that expects players to be both visible and likeable. That tension has legal undertones, not just cultural, because it determines who gets endorsement deals, who gets cut, and who is left without support from the league during public controversies. Public Messaging vs. Internal Commitment The WNBA's official Pride campaigns, rainbow logos, and inclusive marketing speak to a league that wants to lead on LGBTQ+ issues. But there’s little public information on whether the league has concrete mechanisms for handling anti-LGBTQ+ harassment, player safety concerns, or formal appeal processes tied specifically to identity-based harm. Without those systems, the league’s public messaging becomes a matter of branding, not structural equity. Other leagues, notably the NHL, have folded under pressure  when attempts at inclusive branding sparked political backlash. The WNBA has, so far, avoided that kind of resistance. But the question remains: if the league were to face public or legal pressure for how it handles queer players, especially transgender or nonbinary athletes, would its internal policies and CBA protections be ready? What Comes Next? The question of how to include trans and nonbinary athletes could define the league’s future approach to equity. Layshia Clarendon, the first openly nonbinary and trans player in league history, had to fight for acknowledgment – pushing back against performative gestures like the Indiana Fever’s “Diversity Night,” and later helping lead the league’s Social Justice Council  to elevate LGBTQ+ advocacy. Clarendon did help bring big issues to light but also highlighted how the league’s values weren’t always supported by actual policy. If the WNBA wants to continue leading the way on LGBTQ+ inclusion, it must ensure that the legal rights of its players match the public narrative. That means locking in speech protections in the CBA, going beyond the bare minimum with real, enforceable anti-discrimination protections, and making sure there are real processes in place for players to speak up and get support if they face discrimination. Queer visibility in the WNBA is not just a cultural strength; it’s a legal issue. And like any labor issue, it deserves enforceable protections, not just applause. Emery Ochshorn is a 2L at University of Miami School of Law and honors student in the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Program.

Over the last few years, private equity has significantly increased its presence in the sports industry, moving from the sidelines to the center of ownership and investment. This shift is driven by a number of factors, including skyrocketing team valuations, lucrative media rights deals, and a desire to unlock new revenue streams beyond traditional game-day sales. Why Private Equity Is Investing in Sports 🏈 Historically, sports teams were often seen as "trophy assets" owned by wealthy individuals or families, with a focus on passion and prestige rather than financial returns. However, with franchise values outpacing the S&P 500, private equity firms now view sports as a robust asset class with predictable revenue streams and significant growth potential . A major catalyst for this trend has been the relaxation of ownership rules by major leagues. The NFL, for example, recently voted to allow approved private equity funds to acquire minority stakes of up to 10% in its teams. This follows similar moves  by other leagues, including the NBA, MLB, and NHL, which have opened their doors to institutional capital since 2019. This change provides owners with much-needed liquidity and capital for projects like stadium renovations and technological upgrades. Private equity firms are not just buying teams; they are also investing  in the broader sports ecosystem. This includes media and broadcasting rights, real estate developments around stadiums, and companies that provide data analytics and technology for sports organizations. By applying their business expertise, these firms aim to improve operational efficiency and commercialize assets to drive greater returns. The Legal and Regulatory Landscape 🏛️ The entry of private equity into professional sports has prompted a new wave of legal and regulatory considerations. Leagues have been careful to implement rules that, while opening the door to institutional money, also seek to protect the integrity of the sport. A primary concern is the potential for conflicts of interest . Leagues like the NFL, NBA, and MLB have created strict rules to prevent a single private equity firm from gaining too much power. For instance, most league policies limit private equity investments to a minority, non-controlling stake  in a franchise, often with a cap on the percentage of ownership and a minimum holding period. The NFL , for example, limits a fund to investing in up to six teams, with a maximum 10% stake in each and a six-year minimum holding period. These restrictions are designed to ensure that investment is purely passive, preventing a firm from influencing key decisions like player trades or coaching changes, which could affect competitive balance across the league. Another major legal issue is antitrust regulation . The sports leagues' long-standing "single entity" defense, which argues that teams must cooperate for the good of the league (e.g., through revenue sharing), is a key part of how they operate without violating antitrust laws. The rise of private equity firms, particularly those investing in multiple teams, could challenge this model. A single firm with stakes in several competing teams could theoretically coordinate to fix prices on tickets or broadcasting rights, or engage in other anti-competitive practices. This is a significant concern for regulators and has led to the careful structuring of investment deals to avoid these pitfalls. Notable Examples of Private Equity in Sports 💰 CVC Capital Partners and Formula One:  A landmark example is CVC's acquisition of Formula One in 2006. CVC restructured the business, expanded the race calendar, and secured lucrative media deals, ultimately selling its stake in 2016 for a significant return on investment. Sixth Street Partners and Real Madrid:  Sixth Street invested €360 million to renovate Real Madrid's stadium, with the agreement giving them rights to a portion of the non-football event revenues generated there for the next 20 years. This partnership is expected to dramatically increase the stadium's annual revenue. Arctos Sports Partners:  This private investment platform is dedicated to the professional sports industry, holding stakes in multiple teams across different leagues, including the Golden State Warriors and the San Francisco Giants. These examples illustrate how private equity's playbook extends beyond traditional team ownership, focusing on creating long-term value through strategic business management and diversified revenue streams. Michael Moore is a graduate of New York Law School and former member of the school’s Sports Law Society and current member of the NYC Bar Association’s Sports Law Committee. When he’s not working at the New York Law Department he’s thinking about the intersection of sports and law and when the Knicks or Rangers will finally win a championship. His writings are his own and do not reflect the ideas of his employer or the NYCBA Sports Law Committee.

While the Stanford football has struggled on the football field over recent years, the program has generated no shortage of headlines over the course of the offseason. The first major piece of news coming out of Palo Alto surfaced last November when it was announced that former Cardinal and NFL star Andrew Luck was taking over as the program’s General Manager. While many college football teams have hired GMs in recent years to navigate the complexities of NIL and the transfer portal, not all of these positions entail the same job responsibilities and decision making authority within the structure of the program. According to ESPN’s Pete Thamel, Luck’s position at Stanford places him atop of the football program and is a distinct evolution from the traditional power structure where athletic directors and head coaches possess the ultimate decision making authority.   As if bringing back a legend as General Manager wasn’t newsworthy enough, it was far from the only program altering change that occured since Stanford’s final game in the 2024 season. This past March, Luck, in his capacity as GM, fired head coach Troy Taylor after an investigation found Taylor had been “inconsistent with the standards” of Stanford in his behavior. More on his termination later. Taylor, 57, led Sacramento State to FCS playoff appearances in each of his three seasons. Stanford’s then-athletic director Bernard Muir hired him in ahead of the 2023 season after the departure of longtime coach David Shaw. Taylor went 3-9 in each of his two seasons in Palo Alto. As a result of Taylor’s termination, Luck hired his former head coach with the Indianapolis Colts, Frank Reich, as the program’s interim head coach for the 2025 season. As the Cardinal open training camp ahead of their Week 0 game against Hawaii, more news circulated out of Northern California. In the past few weeks, Taylor filed a defamation lawsuit against ESPN and one of its reporters, Xuan Thai. The lawsuit arises from a series of articles regarding allegations Taylor “bullied” and “belittled” female Stanford athletics staffers. As mentioned above, Stanford fired Taylor shortly after the articles were published, and he contends the articles were the reason he was terminated.     In his complaint, Taylor argues that the investigations into him did not conclude that he bullied or belittled female staffers. He claims multiple investigations into him found insufficient evidence to support the claim that his actions were gender-biased or rose to gender-based misconduct. Moreover, in accordance with defamation suits, the lawsuit alleges that ESPN and Thai acted with actual malice, knowingly publishing false information to harm Taylor's reputation. Taylor claims that the defendants had access to the investigatory reports, which contradicted their published statements, yet chose to ignore these facts. Taylor asserts that the false reporting led to his termination and caused severe damage to his reputation, making it difficult for him to find future employment in the coaching profession. Additionally, despite being notified of the inaccuracies, Taylor claims ESPN and Thai did not retract or correct their statements, further exacerbating the harm to Taylor's reputation. Taylor seeks damages for the harm caused to his reputation and career, as well as punitive damages for the defendants' willful and malicious conduct.   Nonetheless, the lawsuit, filed in a California federal district court, will face hurdles. A major challenge for Taylor is that he is a public figure, which means he’ll need to establish ESPN acted with “actual malice.” The test for actual malice is whether ESPN published a false statement knowing it was false or having reckless disregard as to whether it was false. Given that articles are typically vetted by editors, who usually require multiple sources and other methods of fact-checking, media companies can often persuasively argue that they made good faith and reasonable efforts to confirm information before an article was published.   It will be interesting to see how this case develops. For Taylor, his overarching interest is restoring his reputation with the hopes of landing another coaching job. As a successful high school as FCS head coach at Sacramento State, Taylor certainly knows how to run a program. His lack of success in his short time at Stanford shouldn’t be an ultimatum on his ability to coach. In the ever-changing landscape of college football, Stanford has been negativily impacted as much as any power conference program.   Given the school’s rigorous academic standards, the emergence of the early signing period, transfer portal, and NIL have made Stanford one of the hardest jobs in college football. In addition, the recent move to the ACC hasn’t helped matters either. Could Taylor have turned Stanford around with more time? We’ll never know. But what is important is that if the allegations made against Taylor were falsified, Taylor should be able to resurrect his reputation in the industry. If they weren't, it may be hard for him to find another job in major college football. The outcome of this case will play a big role in that possibility.   Brendan Bell is a 3L at SMU Dedman School of Law. He writes primarily on legal issues in MLB and College Athletics.

Seattle Mariners catcher Cal Raleigh just made history. Not only did he become the first catcher in Major League Baseball history to win the Home Run Derby, but he also did it with a nickname, Big Dumper that has been echoing across social media ever since. The name, originally inspired by Raleigh’s physique, has exploded in popularity. Fans have been creating custom jerseys with the nickname on the back. At this point his nickname might be more well-known than his real name. In a recent interview, when asked if he planned to trademark the nickname or start building a brand around it, Raleigh responded, “I’m just focused on the season.” That’s a professional answer. With the playoffs around the corner and having signed a $105 million contract extension earlier in the year, keeping his head in the game makes sense. Focusing on the game does not mean he has to ignore his brand though. Raleigh can stay focused on baseball and wait until the offseason to work on his brand while still securing his trademark rights by filing a 1(b) trademark application. A 1(b), or "intent-to-use" trademark application, is one of the most practical tools available to athletes, creators, and entrepreneurs. In simple terms, intent to use application is a filing with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) where the applicant declares a genuine intention to use the trademark in commerce in the near future, even though the mark is not yet being used. The best part? The person who files the application does not have to sell products or offer services right away. This means they can get a filing date earlier than a possible competitor. Ultimately the mark has priority over someone else’s if a legal conflict develops. A person may claim use in commerce between the date they file their application and the date the USPTO examining attorney approves their mark for publication in the Trademark Official Gazette. Also, use in commerce may be claimed within the first six months after the date they were issued a Notice of Allowance (NOA), which is a notice indicating their mark has been “allowed” for registration (but has not yet registered). During this period, a Statement of Use is filed to claim use of the mark in commerce. The USPTO allows up to five six-month extensions to file a Statement of Use after a Notice of Allowance is issued. An applicant can have a maximum of three years (36 months) from the Notice of Allowance date to file the Statement of Use, provided they file the extension requests and pay the required fees.  Raleigh is having a career-defining season, becoming the first catcher ever to win the Home Run Derby, leading the league in home runs, and currently holding the second-best odds for American League MVP. Moments like this do not come around often, and they create a window of peak visibility that every athlete should be ready to capitalize on. This is the perfect time to turn on-field success into off-field opportunity. With the surge of attention surrounding his nickname, there’s little doubt he could build a powerful and profitable brand from his name, image, and likeness. Athletes work their entire careers to get in the spotlight, but the financial upside doesn’t stop with their contracts. The most marketable players in sports, from LeBron James to Shohei Ohtani, leveraged peak moments to launch or strengthen their personal brands, creating income streams that can far outlast their playing careers. By not taking steps to secure and develop his brand now, Raleigh could be leaving millions on the table. Trademarks, endorsements, licensing deals, and merchandise all start with owning the rights to your identity. Without that foundation, someone else can cash in on your moment while you get nothing. If Raleigh filed a 1(b) for “Big Dumper” right after the Derby, he would not need to release anything or even have a business plan. He would have peace of mind knowing he had his priority date, and he can focus on the season. Now, with major outlets covering the nickname and fans eager for gear, the clock is ticking. Trademark squatters are real. Once they see value in a name, they file first and either try to sell it back or block the original owner from using it. If that happens, Raleigh could end up spending thousands of dollars or worse, losing the rights to his own nickname. Similar to any business, it starts with protecting your assets. In sports, the best players prepare for the next pitch before it is thrown. Off the field, the principle is the same, anticipate the opportunities and protect your position before someone else takes it. Raleigh has already made history with his bat. A simple filing could make sure he owns the history he is creating with his name.   https://www.nilinmotion.com/

First Yeti. Now Mammoth. Utah’s NHL franchise is already in its second trademark dispute. The first dispute came before the team even had an official name. In early 2024, Smith Entertainment Group (SEG) applied to register “Utah Yeti” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On the surface, the name seemed like the perfect fit. It was memorable, distinctive, and great for merchandise. Unfortunately, in March 2024, the USPTO refused the application. The refusal cited a “likelihood of confusion” with YETI, the well-known cooler and drinkware company. In trademark law, products do not have to be identical for a conflict to exist. It is enough if the goods or services are related in a way that might cause consumers to believe they come from the same source. Different companies can feature a similar name if they are clearly in different fields, but it seems likely the sports apparel was too similar to the YETI products. A USPTO refusal for “likelihood of confusion” is not always the end of the road. Even when the examining attorney believes two marks are too similar, the parties involved can sometimes negotiate what’s called a coexistence agreement or consent agreement. This is a written deal where both sides agree that each can use the mark, often with certain restrictions. For example, using it only for specific products, in certain geographic areas, or with clear branding differences to avoid confusion. SEG tried to negotiate an agreement with the cooler company, but neither side could come to an agreement. At that point, SEG had no choice but to abandon the “Utah Yeti” application and begin the search for a new name. After an unprecedented naming process that put the decision in the hands of fans, Utah’s NHL franchise went through four rounds of public voting that started in mid-2024 and ran into early 2025. The list of twenty potential names was narrowed down to three finalists Utah Mammoth, Utah Outlaws, and Utah Hockey Club. More than 850,000 votes were cast, and ultimately, Mammoth won decisively in the final round. In May 2025, the franchise officially unveiled its new identity as the Utah Mammoth. For the first month, the rollout appeared smooth. Then Mammoth Hockey, a smaller company that has been selling hockey bags and other Mammoth-branded gear since 2014, sent a cease-and-desist letter to SEG. The company argued that the team’s name would likely confuse consumers into thinking the two were connected, warning that “it is highly likely that consumers will confuse the two marks, risking our client’s business and operations. Hockey enthusiasts who pledge support for a team other than Utah Mammoth will not purchase goods from our client due to the consumer’s mistaken belief that such a purchase would support a rival team.” Mammoth Hockey does not have a federal trademark registration for the “MAMMOTH” name. Instead, they are relying on common law trademark rights, which are based on use of the trademark in commerce within a particular geographic area. You may only be able to enforce those rights in the specific areas in the United States where you use the trademark if the use covers less than the entire country. On August 1, SEG filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of “Utah Mammoth” is lawful and does not infringe any trademark rights. SEG also pointed to Mammoth Hockey’s earlier public support for the name, including a Facebook post highlighting “Mammoth” as a favorite to become the new name of the team and prior messages from its founder about a possible collaboration. The bigger takeaway, however, is the importance of securing your trademark early. If Mammoth Hockey had filed for a federal trademark back when they began using the name in 2014, they would be in a much stronger legal position today. Federal trademark registration gives you the legal presumption of ownership nationwide, the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with your goods or services, and a stronger position in disputes like this one. Without a registered trademark, they lack the full protection that comes with federal rights, especially when facing a well-funded professional franchise. The Utah Mammoth are unlikely to be forced into another rebrand. A more realistic outcome is a settlement or coexistence agreement that allows both parties to continue using their names within defined boundaries. This serves as a clear reminder, filing a trademark is not just a formality; it is a vital step in protecting your brand, reputation, and long-term business. While this situation may not end in a dramatic courtroom battle, it will be worth watching how the dispute is ultimately resolved.