Several new legal disputes in sports highlight the growing importance of intellectual property in protecting brands and creative works as well as potential defenses to using others’ works.
As Sportico has detailed, Lamar Jackson and Troy Aikman are battling over trademark ownership of the No. 8, while the University of Alabama and LIV Golf are in a tussle over a logo.
Two other IP disputes have emerged this month.
The U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee sued Prime Hydration, a sports and energy drink company founded by influencers Logan Paul and Olajide “KSI” Olatunji, over Prime’s use of USOPC’s trademarks for “Olympic,” “Olympian,” “Team USA” and “Going for Gold,” in connection with the promotion and sale of beverages.
USOPC objects to Team USA basketball player Kevin Durant’s special edition Prime drink, Kevin Durant Prime. Durant is a not defendant in the suit. The complaint, filed in a Colorado federal district court, also objects to Prime advertisements that reference “Celebrate Greatness with the Kevin Durant Olympic Prime Drink!” and “Olympic Achievements.”
USOPC stresses it has a licensing agreement with Coca-Cola wherein the beverage giant paid “a significant monetary contribution” for the exclusive use of USOPC trademarks. Coca-Cola’s payments, in turn, are used to fund the training of Team USA athletes, not only for the Olympics but also the Paralympic, Youth Olympic, Pan American and Parapan American Games. The exclusivity is crucial to the value of the agreement: Coca-Cola is paying to both use Olympic-related marks in advertisements and to prevent rival beverage companies from using those marks.
USOPC contends that Prime’s use of Olympic marks implies Prime might be an official sponsor of the Olympics when it is not. The nonprofit also warns that consumers could become confused “about the origin and quality of the products bearing the marks.” Further, USOPC maintains Prime is diluting its trademarks, weakening their distinctive quality. These trademarks have been used commercially since 1896, and USOPC has a long tradition of exclusively licensing them.
The alleged infringement, USOPC contends, has caused millions of dollars in damages. Prime will have the opportunity to rebut the allegations. Expect the company to maintain that consumers who purchase Prime drinks know the company is not an official sponsor and that it has the right to enter into endorsement deals with Durant and other individual Olympic athletes in recognition of their play at the Paris Olympics.
The lawsuit against Prime is the latest example of USOPC trademark enforcement. The nonprofit has taken other businesses to court over the years for alleged infringement. The Olympic Committee sued American Media Company for using “Olympics USA” as a title in a magazine that contained photos and biographical information about Olympic athletes and was distributed prior to the 2000 Games in Sydney, even though the magazine contained a disclaimer saying it was not associated with the U.S. Olympic Committee. The lawsuit came up short with a federal judge. The magazine successfully argued its use of the material was protected by the First Amendment.
While trademark law protects marks, copyright law protects creative works of authorship—including music.
Enter Kobalt Music Publishing American (KMPA) and other companies that own or have licensed interests in hit songs sung by Britney Spears, Justin Bieber and Doja Cat and that contend they are owed licensing fees when these songs are reproduced or distributed. These companies have sued 14 NBA teams in the Southern District of New York for copyright infringement, alleging they have exploited copyrights by “synchronizing” the songs with videos intended to promote the teams’ brands. The teams allegedly failed to obtain consent.
The 14 teams are the Atlanta Hawks, Cleveland Cavaliers, Denver Nuggets, Indiana Pacers, Miami Heat, Minnesota Timberwolves, New York Knicks, New Orleans Pelicans, Orlando Magic, Philadelphia 76ers, Portland Trail Blazers, Phoenix Suns, Sacramento Kings and San Antonio Spurs. The plaintiffs demand up to $150,000 in damages for each infringed work along with a court order that would block the teams from using the songs.
The teams will answer the complaints, deny the allegations and seek their dismissal. Expect the teams to argue they obtained the necessary licenses for use of the music or that their activities fall within the realm of fair use, which refers to lawful copying of others’ works. Fair use in the context of videos that incorporate music hinges on the purpose and amount of copying, how much the copying would undermine sales of the song and to what extent the original song is transformed into a new work. The teams could thus rely on different arguments to contend that their use of the songs comply with copyright law.
