Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Opening Day Productions
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
385 F. Supp. 2d 256 (2005)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (MLBP) (plaintiff) served as a licensing agent for trademarks belonging to Major League Baseball (MLB). The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (BOC) (plaintiff) was created by MLB’s teams. For many years before 1990, MLB used the term “opening day” to signify each club’s first regular-season game. In July 1990, Opening Day Productions, Inc. (OD) (defendant) approached MLBP with the ideas to sell merchandise with the term “opening day” and for an MLB-wide, single-sponsor marketing campaign for opening day. MLBP and OD engaged in some discussions, which MLBP terminated in approximately late 1990. In December 1995, MLBP and the BOC agreed that True Value Hardware (True Value) would, among other things, participate in promotions related to MLB’s opening day, including distributing baseball caps with the term “opening day.” Per MLBP, this arrangement arose from a suggestion by True Value’s marketing agency and neither the marketing agency nor the relevant MLBP employees knew about MLBP’s 1990 discussions with OD. Meanwhile, in April 1994, OD sought to register the term “opening day” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The BOC opposed OD’s application, arguing that the term was insufficiently distinct and already was being used by MLB. OD threatened to sue MLBP and the BOC if they continued using the term “opening day” on clothing items. MLBP and the BOC responded by seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement. OD countered by, among other things, asserting claims against MLBP and the BOC for infringement, unfair competition under the Lanham Act and New York law, bad faith, fraud, and breach of contract. OD sought a declaration that it was entitled to register the term “opening day” and owned the trademark. MLBP and the BOC moved for summary judgment dismissing OD’s claims. OD cross-moved for summary judgment on its declaratory-judgment claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Daniels, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.