Yes, it is illegal because the name is too confusing. The court explained that even though the Indianapolis Colts 'abandoned' the old 'Baltimore Colts' name when they moved, the new team can't just pick it up and use it. The problem is that the Indianapolis Colts is still the same team that used to be in Baltimore. Using the name 'Colts' in Baltimore again would trick fans into thinking the new CFL team is the original team that came back, or that it is approved by the NFL. The court believed a survey which showed that most football fans who saw merchandise for the 'Baltimore CFL Colts' were, in fact, confused about who the team was.

I think the lower court was right to stop the new Baltimore team from using 'Colts' in their name. Even though the Indianapolis Colts aren't using the name 'Baltimore Colts' anymore, letting the new team use a very similar name could confuse a lot of people. We asked a bunch of football fans about this, and many of them thought the new 'Baltimore CFL Colts' was either the old Baltimore Colts team or somehow connected to the Indianapolis Colts. This confusion could hurt the Indianapolis Colts and the NFL by making people watch the wrong games or buy the wrong team merchandise. It doesn't matter that the new team wanted to continue the tradition of the old Baltimore Colts - what matters is that people might get mixed up. So, for now, the new team can't use 'Colts' in their name.

Yes, the use of the name 'Baltimore CFL Colts' constitutes trademark infringement. Although the 'Baltimore Colts' mark was abandoned when the team moved, a third party is not entitled to use an abandoned mark if it is likely to cause confusion with the former owner's current mark. The court found that the Indianapolis Colts maintained institutional continuity with the former Baltimore Colts, as it was the same team that simply relocated. The addition of the acronym 'CFL' was deemed insufficient to prevent confusion, as many consumers are unfamiliar with it and it was not prominently displayed on merchandise. The court credited a consumer survey that demonstrated a high level of confusion among football fans, many of whom believed the new Baltimore team was the old team reincarnated or was otherwise affiliated with the NFL or the Indianapolis Colts. Therefore, the use of the name was likely to confuse a substantial number of consumers regarding the identity, sponsorship, or league affiliation of the new team, justifying the injunction.

Yes, the use of the name 'Baltimore CFL Colts' by the new Baltimore team likely infringes on the trademark rights of the Indianapolis Colts and the NFL. I affirm the district court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction. The abandonment of the 'Baltimore Colts' trademark by the Indianapolis Colts when they moved does not entitle a third party to use it in a way that confuses consumers about the identity, sponsorship, or league affiliation of the new team. The Jacoby consumer survey, despite some flaws, credibly demonstrates a substantial likelihood of confusion among consumers. Many respondents believed the 'Baltimore CFL Colts' was either the old NFL Baltimore Colts or the Indianapolis Colts, or thought the team was somehow sponsored or authorized by the Indianapolis Colts or the NFL. This confusion could harm the Indianapolis Colts and the NFL by diverting viewers and merchandise sales. While the new Baltimore team argues for the right to continue a 'nontransportable cultural institution,' this argument is weak given the potential for consumer confusion. The injunction is not overbroad, as it specifically targets the use of 'Colts' in connection with a Baltimore football team, which is the source of the confusion.

Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club Ltd. Partnership

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot