It’s fall, and you know what that means: football season! For many, this means a return to the couch each weekend to spectate America’s most-watched sport. But the popularity of doing so appears to be in decline. This shift isn’t only affecting the NFL, but also college football as well, as ticket sales continue to plummet. Increasingly among my own family and friends, it seems as if everyone is more interested in playing their fantasy leagues than watching reality unfold before them. Which is why, one would think, that leagues and other football organizations would want to promote discussion about football, rather than hinder it.


But football organizations are cracking down on, rather than encouraging, use of familiar football names and phrases. Some have questioned, for example, the NFL’s bully-like tactics in aggressively protecting the “Superbowl” name. The annual “big game” is so well-known and such a major event that it’s almost impossible not to use its actual name. Yet, the NFL persists, enforcing more than just its famous name, drawing the ire of commentators each year.

Such tactics appear to have inspired a recent filing by the Heisman Trophy Trust against “,” for trademark and copyright infringement. The Heisman Trophy Trust, the complaint says, is the owner of a slew of federal trademark and service mark registrations related to the Heisman Trophy, “one of the most distinguished, prestigious, and recognized awards in all of sports, and perhaps the most famous of all individual awards in football.” The award is given to the most outstanding collegiate football player, usually a quarterback or running back, each year. You might recognize the trophy by its distinctive “stiff-arm” maneuver captured in bronze:

Credit: The Ringer

Defendant is a website that offers information, analysis, and podcasts about the Heisman trophy award. It is known for its “one-of-a-kind regression model that processes simulated Heisman votes,” to predict in advance who will win the Heisman each year. It reportedly correctly predicted the most recent winner, Baker Mayfield.

The Heisman Trophy Trust, apparently, does not appreciate’s analysis and attention. It alleges that the website is deliberately attempting to free ride on the fame and notoriety of the Heisman Trophy marks, and it says that consumers are likely to believe there is a connection between the website and the actual trophy organization. Of course, the fact that exists at all belies any such connection; the Trophy selection is secretive, but the website helps fans read the field and guess who will win next.

Time will tell whether the Heisman Trophy Trust can prevail against a news reporting and commentary organization like, but it’s not unprecedented. The Academy Awards sued “” over a decade ago, prompting the website to change its name to “Awards Daily.” One cannot help but think that has an incredibly strong nominative use defense, though. Under nominative use doctrine, another person can use the trademark of another if:

  1. the thing identified by the trademark (here, a trophy) cannot be readily identified any other way;
  2. the mark is used only as much as is necessary for that identification; and
  3. the use does not suggest sponsorship or endorsement.

The nominative use defense protects free speech and against the need to use “absurd turns of phrase” to avoid liability.

Credit: Wikipedia

It’s difficult to imagine a viable substitute to the name “Heisman,” given the trophy’s actual name–and namesake. What alternatives are there to that do not include the surname? One commentator  offered an idea:

Of course, this is absurd. And generic alternatives would fail to adequately describe what the website does (e.g., One also doesn’t have to look much farther than a simple Google search to find that the media regularly uses “Heisman Watch” as a phrase to discuss anticipation about the next awardee. Even ESPN has a section called “Heisman Watch.” This kind of ubiquity shows the obvious necessity of using the surname. The common use of the phrase also suggests there is a very low likelihood that collegiate football fans are confusing the website–or any other reporting source–with the actual trophy organization. These are hallmarks of fair use.

But setting aside the legal defenses, one has to wonder if organizations such as the Heisman Trophy Trust, NCAA, and NFL ought to relax a little, and encourage the kind of use presented by sites like These fan centers generate excitement about, and interest in, football. That’s something football desperately needs more of lately.

Sixteen pairs of experienced computer users are asked to beta test your on-line product and each of them just stare at the screen until they are asked "what’s wrong?"

They reply almost in unison, "we’re waiting for the rest of it."

Would you have been discouraged by their almost unanimous response?

Kind of like the emperor, after being told by a child that he’s wearing no clothes?

In response, would you have been inclined to clutter up the user interface to provide "the rest of it"?

Or, would you recognize the power of simplicity and brevity?

With this kind of a slow start, would you ever expect to earn the label "the most successful company in the world"?

Thank goodness Marissa Mayer, employee #24, kept the lines clean, easy, and the screen bare.

If you’re tired of waiting for "the rest of the story," click to see the answer below the jump.

Continue Reading “We’re waiting for the rest of it . . . .”

You may have heard the phrase “Shaq Attaq” referring to the famous NBA player and gold medal winner Shaquille O’Neal’s basketball skills.  While he played basketball in Arizona for the Phoenix Suns, the Arizonians nicknamed him “The Big Cactus” and “The Big Shaqtus” in reference to the combination of Mr. O’Neal and an Arizona cactus.

You may recall that I wrote about former NFL players suing the NFL over their likenesses a couple of months ago “Purple People Eater Jim Marshall & Friends Take on the NFL.” ESPN used O’Neal’s likeness when it aired commercials featuring O’Neal encountering a cactus bearing his face in the desert. Before doing so, however, ESPN obtained Mr. O’Neal’s company, Mine O‘Mine, Inc.’s, permission to use the mark. Mine O’ Mine has the exclusive rights to use and sublicense Mr. O’Neal’s, image and likeness and to register, exploit and protect Shaq and Shaq-formative trademarks.  In connection therewith, the company has a pending application for the “Shaq Attaq” mark for apparel.  

Mr. O’Neal is moving from the basketball court to a different court. True Fan Logo, Inc.’s website is an online retail store under the SHAQTUS ORANGE CLOTHING COMPANY mark. Playing off the ESPN commercial, the store features an animated character in the form of a cactus with O’Neal’s facial features and a basketball jersey with Mr. O’Neal’s number. This company tried to shut down the ESPN commercial claiming its ownership of the Shaqtus mark. ESPN ignored this request.  However, Mr. O’Neal is not ignoring the company. Indeed, Mr. O’Neal recently sued True Fan Logo, Inc., and individuals Dan Mortenson and Michael Calamese. According to the complaint they have registered and are using and  

A PDF of this complaint is attached. Read more about the complaint here. The complaint  includes claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, cyber-squatting and others. Shaq often wins on the basketball court. Now, he is hoping for a win in a Las Vegas court of law.