Source: https://www.ipmvs.com/filewrapper/supreme-court-nfl-collective-licensing-of-trademarks-not-immune-from-section-1-antitrust-scrutiny
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:58:35+00:00

Document:
Monday the Supreme Court unanimously held the NFL's practice of collectively licensing the trademarks of all 32 individual teams is not immune from antitrust scrutiny under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The NFL argued that because the marks are all licensed through a single entity, NFL Properties, there was no "contract, combination, . . . or conspiracy" under § 1, and therefore there could be no antitrust problem.
The relevant inquiry, therefore, is whether there is a "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy" amongst "separate economic actors pursuing separate economic interests," such that the agreement "deprives the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking," and therefore of "diversity of entrepreneurial interests," and thus of actual or potential competition.
Applying this framework, the Court held the existence of NFL Properties was not sufficient to prevent a "contract, combination . . . or conspiracy" and therefore avoid § 1 scrutiny. The teams are "sparately controlled, potential competitors with economic interests that are distinct from NFLP's financial well-being."
Despite holding the NFL's actions were subject to review under § 1, the Court did not pass on the merits, and noted some aspects of the NFL may provide a sufficient justification of its licensing practices under the Rule of Reason. Ultimately, it will be up to the district court to address the merits of the case and determine whether there is a § 1 violation.
Click below for more detail of American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League and links to media coverage of the case.
In 1963, the NFL teams formed NFL Properties (NFLP) to handle the development, licensing, and marketing of the teams' intellectual property. From then until 2000, NFLP granted nonexclusive licenses to numerous vendors to use the NFL's intellectual property. However, in 2000, the teams voted to give NFLP the power to grant exclusive licenses. NFLP began doing just that, including granting an exclusive license for video games to Electronic Arts in 2005 (an arrangement that has also come under antitrust scrutiny). As relevant to this case, NFLP granted an exclusive license to Reebok for headwear. In order to grant the exclusive license, NFLP did not renew any of its other licenses for headwear, including the license previously granted to Amercian Needle. American Needle brought suit, alleging the grant of the exclusive license violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act (the complaint also alleged a violation of Section 2, but this allegation is not relevant to this appeal).
1. Are the NFL and its member teams a single entity that is exempt from rule of reason claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act simply because they cooperate in the joint production of NFL football games, without regard to their competing economic interests, their ability to control their own economic decisions, or their ability to compete with each other and the league? 2. Is the agreement of the NFL teams among themselves and with Reebok International, pursuant to which the teams agreed not to compete with each other in the licensing and sale of consumer headwear and clothing decorated with the teams' respective logos and trademarks, and not to permit any licenses to be granted to Reebok's competitors for a period of ten years, subject to a rule of reason claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, where the teams own and control the use of their separate logos and trademarks and, but for their agreement not to, could compete with each other in the licensing and sale of Team Products?
The NFL respondents may be similar in some sense to a single enterprise that owns several pieces of intellectual property and licenses them jointly, but they are not similar in the relevant functional sense. Although NFL teams have common interests such as promoting the NFL brand, they are still separate, profit-maximizing entities, and their interests in licensing team trademarks are not necessarily aligned.
Accordingly, the Court held the licensing of the NFL team marks through NFLP was not beyond the reach of § 1. The Court noted that the justifications provided by NFLP and the NFL teams are not relevant to whether § 1 is potentially implicated, but are instead potential facts relevant to the Rule of Reason analysis. The Court therefore reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision and remanded the case to the district court for analysis under the Rule of Reason.
To read the full decision in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League, click here.

References: § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 § 1
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1
 v.