Soccer Supporters Clash Over IP Rights Ahead of World Cup
A nonprofit that promotes youth soccer says it's spent millions developing the 'U.S. Soccer Foundation' mark, only to be accused of trademark infringement now by U.S. soccer's governing body.
December 06, 2018 at 07:44 PM
3 minute read
Two nonprofits that have worked together to promote soccer in the United States are getting a divorce, with custody of the name “U.S. Soccer Foundation” in the balance.
The United States Soccer Federation Foundation Inc. sued the United States Soccer Federation Inc. on Thursday, seeking a declaration of rights over the name U.S. Soccer Foundation.
The foundation says it's been using the name to support youth soccer in the United States, particularly among disadvantaged kids, for more than 20 years. But the federation—the governing body that oversees the U.S. national teams and world-class competition—registered the name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the late 1990s and recently told the foundation to stop using it.
That led to Thursday's complaint, filed in the District of Columbia by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. It alleges the groups have “co-existed peacefully” while the foundation raised more than $100 million for soccer pitches, uniforms and equipment.
Now the Federation has “threatened to hijack the foundation's trademarks for its own use—likely in an effort to capitalize on lucrative business opportunities when the United States hosts the World Cup in 2026,” according to the complaint, which is signed by Quinn D.C. associate Scott Lerner. Quinn New York partners Robert Raskopf, Todd Anten and Julia Beskin are also on the complaint.
The foundation describes itself as the major charitable organization of soccer in the United States. It was set up with $50 million in surplus funds from the 1994 World Cup. Since then it's used the U.S. Soccer Foundation name on fundraising material sent to prospective donors, on kids' soccer jerseys, on its website and social media pages and on the surface of pitches across the country, according to the complaint. The organization says it raised $18 million in the last year alone.
The complaint acknowledges that the federation is listed as the owner of the U.S. Soccer Foundation marks. But, it contends, the two organizations “have shared the understanding that the foundation is the actual owner.”
The governing federation operates its own U.S. Soccer Development Fund. The complaint alleges that the federation hasn't used the U.S. Soccer Foundation mark in at least the last three years, if ever. But the federation has “recently and abruptly done an about-face, demanding that the foundation cease using the Foundation Marks and indicating an intention to use them in the future.”
The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement, an order canceling the federation's registrations and an award of damages for unfair or deceptive trade practices.
Lawrence Siskind, a trademark attorney at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass who's not involved in the case, said a key issue is likely to be abandonment. If there is indeed no evidence the federation used the marks over the last three years, that could create a legal presumption that the marks have been abandoned. “It can be rebutted,” he said, “but the longer the time period that's gone by, the harder it is to rebut.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250