Maryland Stadium Authority v. Becker
806 F. Supp. 1236, 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18358, 25 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1469 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party can establish protectable trademark rights in a geographically descriptive name for a service, even before that service is offered to the public, through extensive advertising and promotional activities that cause the name to acquire secondary meaning in the minds of consumers.
Facts:
- In 1986, the Maryland General Assembly created the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA), a public corporation, to build a new sports complex in Baltimore.
- In 1987, MSA and the General Assembly selected an 85-acre area historically known as Camden Yards as the site for the new baseball park.
- From 1988 through 1991, MSA engaged in extensive promotional efforts, referring to the project as the 'Camden Yards' complex in development plans, newsletters, public events, media briefings, and merchandise.
- These promotional activities and widespread media coverage generated significant public excitement and debate over whether the new park should be called 'Camden Yards' or 'Oriole Park.'
- In July 1991, before the park opened, Roy G. Becker began selling t-shirts outside the old Memorial Stadium that featured the words 'Camden Yards means baseball' along with baseball-related imagery.
- In October 1991, the park's official name was announced as 'Oriole Park at Camden Yards,' and it opened for the first game in April 1992.
Procedural Posture:
- On August 22, 1991, the Maryland Stadium Authority (MSA) sent a demand letter to Roy G. Becker to cease his use of the name 'Camden Yards.'
- MSA filed suit against Becker in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on September 23, 1991, asserting claims under the Lanham Act and for unfair competition under state common law.
- After discovery was completed, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment with the district court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does extensive pre-opening promotion and publicity by a service provider (MSA) for a geographically descriptive name ('Camden Yards') establish enforceable trademark rights sufficient to prevent a third party (Becker) from using that name on related merchandise?
Opinions:
Majority - Motz, District Judge.
Yes. Extensive pre-opening promotion can create protectable trademark rights in a geographically descriptive name if that promotion establishes secondary meaning. To establish infringement of an unregistered mark, a plaintiff must show (1) it adopted and used the mark and is entitled to enforce it, and (2) the defendant's use is likely to cause confusion. While MSA had not yet sold services (i.e., held a baseball game) at the park, its years of extensive advertising, promotion, and publicity were sufficient to constitute 'use' of the 'Camden Yards' mark. These efforts successfully established a secondary meaning, where the public came to associate the name 'Camden Yards' not with a geographic location but with the specific new ballpark being built by MSA. Becker's intentional copying of the mark for baseball-related merchandise creates a powerful presumption of both secondary meaning and a likelihood of confusion, which he failed to rebut.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing that trademark rights for services can be acquired prior to the actual rendering of those services. It clarifies that extensive, targeted promotion and advertising that create a strong public association with a mark are sufficient to constitute 'use' under the Lanham Act. The decision solidifies the principle that intentional copying of a mark creates a strong presumption of both secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant. This precedent is particularly important for businesses like sports venues, theme parks, or hotels that engage in long-term, pre-opening marketing campaigns to build goodwill and brand recognition.
Unlock the full brief for Maryland Stadium Authority v. Becker