The Oakland Raiders (Raiders) brought trademark
and trade dress dilution claims against the National Football
League (NFL), National Football League Properties, Inc. (NFLP),
other NFL teams, and other NFL related defendants. These claims
asserted abuse of leadership power, neglect of duties,
favoritism, and arbitrary rule enforcement by the defendants. The
Raiders asserted that this resulted in damage to their
organization.
There are two issues central to these claims.
First, the Raiders stated that they had an exclusive license
agreement with the NFLP. This agreement provided the team with
the nonexclusive right to use their intellectual property to
advertise on the sidelines during games. The Raiders further
asserted that the NFLP breached this agreement by allowing them
only to wear NIKE created merchandise on the sidelines. The NFLP
is the merchandising arm of the NFL.
The second issue concerned whether the NFLP and
NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue diluted the team's
distinctive trademark. The Raiders asserted that this was done by
the approval of a similar team mark for another NFL team, the
Tampa Bay Buccaneers; and by using colors similar to those in the
Raider's mark for yet another NFL team, the Carolina
Panthers. The NFL Constitution and Bylaws state that no team can
make changes to their uniforms, in color or design without the
approval of the Commissioner.
The defendants countered by submitting a
petition to the trial court stating that the NFL Constitution and
Bylaws state that the Commissioner has "full, complete, and
final jurisdiction and authority" to arbitrate any dispute
between two or more members of the NFL. Also included in the
Bylaws are provisions stating that the Commissioner has the power
to hear and settle disputes between NFL teams. This petition was
denied and the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed
the trial courts finding.
The appellate court stated that the claims
brought by the Raiders required injunctive relief. Recognizing
that arbitrators do not have the power to grant injunctive
relief, the court found that the arbitration clause could not be
upheld, in essence because arbitration statutes have placed the
granting of injunctive relief solely with the courts.
The NFL argued that parties may waive private
rights and remedies if they are not against public policy.
Further, the NFL concluded that the Raiders had done so by
agreeing to give the arbitrator injunctive rights through their
agreement. The court did not find this a valid contention.
The dispute was at its core procedural. The
Raiders chose the court as the forum in which to bring their
claims. Seemingly, the Raiders found this to be the forum most
likely to be fair in settling their disputes. The NFL asserted
that as a member of the National Football League the team agreed
to waive its private rights and further agreed to have disputes
settled by an arbitrator. Ultimately, the court found that such a
provision could not be applied because this particular dispute
required injunctive relief and statutes prohibit arbitrators from
having the power to award injunctive relief.
Top of Page
You Make the Call. . . Index
"You Make The Call..." is a newsletter published four times per year (spring,
summer, fall, winter) by the National Sports Law Institute of Marquette University Law
School, PO Box 1881, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53201-1881. (414) 288-5815, fax (414) 288-5818,
munsli@vms.csd.mu.edu. (www.marquette.edu/law/sports/call.html).
This publication is distributed via fax and email to individuals in the sports field upon
request.
|
Editorial Staff:
Paul M. Anderson, Editor & Designer
Kirsten Hauser, Associate Editor
|
Copyright © 1999 -- All rights reserved.
