Sport M Arketing and The

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2010, 19 , 166-169, © 2010 West Virginia University In addition to the folding of leagues and teams, it is not uncommon for minor league teams to move to w What’s in a Name? new locations. When leagues and teams fold or re- a AFL Philadelphia locate, one of the major yet often overlooked market - L ing challenges is how best to communicate this decision to the franchise’s existing fan base. The com - e LLC v. Krause munications strategy is particularly important when fans have already made emotional and financial com - h mitments to the league or team in terms of season tick - t Provides Legal et purchases, and thus are owed refunds for their ticket purchases. This article examines a novel case of AFL d Lessons for Sport Philadelphia LLC v. Krause (2009) that, while ultimate - n ly resolved by the parties, provides numerous legal and Organizations on business lessons for sport organizations faced with a notifying their fan base of its demise or relocation. g Use of Employee History and Facts of the Case n The dispute first surfaced in January 2009 when Joseph i Names in Company Krause, the Vice President of Ticket Sales for the t Philadelphia Soul of the Arena Football League, filed a e Communications complaint in Pennsylvania state court seeking payment k of past wages and commissions earned. The Soul and r its celebrity owner, Jon Bon Jovi, (hereinafter “team” Steve McKelvey and David Heim or “Soul”) responded by suing Krause in federal court a for copyright and trademark infringement. The team’s infringement claims stemmed from a public event Steve McKelvey, JD, is an associate professor and graduate M Krause organized and promoted entitled “Lost Souls”. program director in the Department of Sport Management The event was intended to serve as an opportunity for t at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. His research interests include legal issues in sport marketing and sport Soul fans to celebrate the team’s recent championship r sponsorship, ambush marketing, and sport sponsorship and season and commiserate over the loss of the team, o consumer attitudes. which had gained tremendous popularity and follow - David Heim, JD, is an attorney at law for Bochetto & Lentz ing in the Philadelphia area. p in Philadelphia, PA. In its complaint, the team alleged Krause infringed S the team’s copyrights for making and selling replicas of the team’s championship ring. The team’s complaint Introduction also alleged trademark infringement tied to various The landscape of second-tier professional sports is lit - promotional materials and web addresses used to pro - tered with leagues and teams that have folded—a reality mote the event, including “Lost Souls,” that has become even more prevalent due to the recent Philetofsoul.com” and “Philadelphiasoulmates.com.” In economic downturn. For instance, this past August, the response to what was perceived by Krause as a retaliato - National Lacrosse League’s (NLL) Orlando Titans ry lawsuit to his suit for past wages, Krause countersued announced that it would not field a team for the 2011 the team. In the first such reported instance within a season … after having substantially completed its 2011 sport setting, Krause claimed that the Soul had season ticket campaign (“Titans confirm,” 2010). In infringed the trademark associated with his name by March, 2010, the Los Angeles Sol, the most highly-pub - falsely designating the origin of an email as having been licized team in the newly-formed Women’s Professional sent from Krause’s Philadelphia Soul email address. Soccer League (WPSL), folded after just one season The email informed Soul ticket purchasers and other (Tripp, 2010). Despite averaging over 12,000 fans a fans of the cancellation of the 2009 season. Given the game, the Sacramento Monarchs of the WNBA closed Soul’s popularity, this email was met with public anger shop after the 2009 season (Lombardo, 2009b). Last but … anger that was, as alleged in the countersuit, directed not least, one of the most surprising failures occurred in to some degree to the “sender” of the message, Joe December 2008 when the Arena Football League closed Krause. Krause also filed an invasion of privacy misap - its doors after a 22-year run (Lombardo, 2009a). propriation claim under Pennsylvania state law. The team sought dismissal of Krause’s countersuit and in a 226 Volume 19 • Number 3 • 2010 • Sport Marketing Quarterly rare opinion, the court allowed Krause’s Lanham Act could not be confused as to its origin because it reflect - and misappropriation claims to proceed. ed and indeed did originate from the Philadelphia Krause’s Trademark Infringement and State Law Soul” ( AFL Philadelphia LLC v. Krause, 2009, p. 529). Misappropriation Claims The district court, however, rejected the team’s argu - The district court first considered Krause’s false des - ment. Instead, the court held that the email “clearly ignation of origin claim under the Lanham Act (15 indicated that it originated from [Krause], albeit in his U.S.C. Section 1125(a)). In order to state such a claim, role as a Philadelphia Soul employee” Id . In applying the plaintiff must show (1) that the mark is valid and the Lapp factors, the court held Krause “has pled a legally protectable, (2) it owns the mark, and (3) the high degree of similarity between his name and the defendant’s use of the mark to identify goods or servic - alleged infringing email designation of origin, strength es caused a likelihood of consumer confusion ( Freedom in his mark based on the elements of the secondary Card, Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co ., 2005). Analysis of meaning analysis …, the Philadelphia Soul’s intent to the first requirement turns on the extent to which per - trade upon [Krause’s] good name in falsely designating sonal names can serve as trademarks. The general rule the email, actual confusion, and that [Krause] and the is that they are not inherently distinctive marks and Philadelphia Soul operate in the same general indus - hence gain trademark protection only upon showing of try” Id. The court thus held that Krause had pled a secondary meaning (See Tillery v. Leonard & Sciolla , likelihood of confusion sufficient to withstand a 2006)). The plaintiff must show that he used the per - motion to dismiss. sonal name as a trademark and that a substantial por - With respect to Krause’s state law-based misappro - tion of the consuming public associates the name priation of name claim, the court relied on the specifically with his business ( Flynn v. AK Peters, 2004). Restatement (Second) of Torts in which a “defendant In arguing secondary meaning, Krause claimed that must have appropriated to his own use or benefit the he was a well-known individual with a very favorable reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, reputation in the Philadelphia sports and entertain - public interest or other value of the plaintiff’s name or ment business as a media personality and public rela - likeness” (Section 652C, cmt c.). Although the Soul tions specialist, and that his reputation directly argued that Krause’s name was not appropriated for a resulted in record breaking ticket sales for the Soul. commercial purpose or advantage, the court clarified The district court, relying on the factors enumerated in that, based on the law and unlike a right of publicity Freedom Card, Inc. , found that the following factors claim, the appropriation of one’s name or likeness tended to show secondary meaning: length of use of under an invasion of privacy claim does not require Krause’s “favorable reputation in the industry during that the appropriation result in some commercial gain his tenure as Director of Sales, the extent of sales lead - or advantage for the defendant. Hence, the court ing to buyer association based on Krause’s reputation found sufficient grounds for Krause’s claim of appro - and relationships, large numbers of sales based on priation of his name. record breaking ticket sales, the fact of copying Defendant’s name by sending the falsely designated Implications for Sport Marketers email, and actual confusion by the recipients of the Success in sport marketing and sales is largely based on email.” ( AFL Philadelphia LLC v. Krause, 2009 , p. 527). the ability to build and cultivate relationships. As a The district court further found that it was not neces - result, executives (especially senior level executives) sary that Krause establish secondary meaning between can, over the course of their employment, build up sig - his name and the Philadelphia Soul specifically. The nificant goodwill and a positive reputation for sales court found that it was enough that Krause’s name was and customer service among the team’s fan base. As associated with a particular industry (sports and enter - this case suggests, it is not so much important from a tainment) and not with a specific employer or compa - legal standpoint that the executive becomes perceived ny (in this case, the Soul). as being “the face of the team.” What is important is Having found secondary meaning sufficient to estab - the extent to which the executive has built goodwill in lish the first element of the Lanham Act claim and his or her name within the local community generally, given that the Soul did not contest the second element and the team’s loyal fan base in particular. This (Krause’s ownership of his name), the court turned to becomes even more of a factor if the person hired has the final element, likelihood of confusion. The Soul built or acquired, through his or her past employment, argued that Krause had not adequately pled likelihood a pre-existing level of goodwill and reputation within of confusion related to the origin of the Soul’s “goods the local sports community.

Load more