Background
Wrigley View Rooftop operates across from Wrigley Field and sells admission to watch Chicago Cubs games from its rooftop seats. For twenty years, the rooftop participated in an agreement that allowed ticket sales and certain uses of Cubs trademarks in exchange for royalties. That agreement expired at the end of 2023, and the parties did not reach a replacement deal.
Wrigley View continued selling tickets to watch Cubs games. Although it removed some references after the Cubs sued, its materials continued to display Cubs marks and describe the business as an official partner. The Cubs sought summary judgment on federal trademark and false-advertising claims, Illinois unfair-competition theories, misappropriation, and unjust enrichment, along with a permanent injunction.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the Cubs summary judgment on trademark infringement, federal unfair competition, misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and related Illinois claims. Wrigley View used identical registered Cubs marks after its license ended, and the continued use created a likelihood of confusion. The Lanham Act imposes liability without requiring proof that the infringement was intentional.
The Cubs also established that the rooftop misappropriated the live-game experience. Wrigley View sold access only for games and events, redesigned the rooftop to improve sightlines, and competed for spectators without contributing to the substantial cost of producing the games. The court found that this free riding caused commercial harm and unjustly enriched the defendants.
One issue remains for trial. Although claims that Wrigley View was an official Cubs partner were literally false, the Cubs did not conclusively show that the statements were material to customers’ purchasing decisions. The court therefore denied both sides summary judgment on false advertising. It nevertheless permanently barred the defendants, absent written consent, from using Cubs marks, claiming affiliation, selling tickets to view Wrigley Field events, or undertaking related commercial activity.
Key Takeaways
- Continued use of licensed trademarks after a license expires can establish likely confusion.
- Intent is not required for Lanham Act trademark liability, even when some post-termination use resulted from an incomplete cleanup.
- A commercial rooftop that sells access to a live sporting event may face state-law misappropriation liability when it free rides on the event producer’s investment.
- A literally false affiliation claim does not eliminate the need to prove materiality for false advertising.
Why It Matters
The decision reaches beyond ordinary logo use. It treats the live Cubs game experience as a commercially created product that a neighboring business cannot package and sell without authorization while bearing none of the production cost. That reasoning could matter to stadium operators and adjacent venues whose businesses depend on views of live events.
The ruling also shows why post-license brand transitions require careful auditing. Removing prominent marks may not be enough if brochures, websites, or partnership language remain accessible. At the same time, the surviving false-advertising issue illustrates that confusion and materiality are distinct questions requiring distinct proof.
This opinion was not located at a directly verifiable, publicly accessible repository URL as of publication.
Surfaced via Law360 IP.