Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

March Madness Trademarks: Avoiding a Foul Call from the NCAA (2020 Update – Part 1)

By Mitchell Stabbe on March 12, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

With the NCAA Basketball Tournament about to begin (though without an audience at the games), broadcasters, publishers and other businesses need to be wary about potential claims arising from their use of terms and logos associated with the tournament, including the well-known marks March Madness®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Women’s Final Four®, Elite Eight,® and The Road to the Final Four® (with and without the word “The”), each of which is a federally registered trademark.  The NCAA does not own “Sweet Sixteen – someone else does – but it does have federal registrations for NCAA Sweet Sixteen® and NCAA Sweet 16®.

The NCAA also has federal registrations for some lesser known marks, including March Mayhem®, March Is On®, Midnight Madness®, Selection Sunday®, 68 Teams, One Dream®, And Then There Were Four®, and NCAA Fast Break®.  The NCAA has a pending application to register March to the Madness as well.

Some of these marks are used to promote the basketball tournament or the coverage of the tournament, while others are used on merchandise, such as t-shirts.  The NCAA also uses (or licenses) variations on these marks without seeking registration, but it can claim common law rights in those marks, e.g., March Madness Live, March Madness Music Festival and Final Four Fan Fest.

Although the NCAA may use the federal registration symbol (®) with any of its federally registered marks, it is not obligated to do so.  Thus, it should not be assumed that the lack of the symbol means that the NCAA is not claiming trademark rights.

A Surprising History of “March Madness” (For Those Who May Like Sports Trivia)

The NCAA also may not have been the first to license the use of “March Madness.”  Beginning in the early 1990’s, the IHSA licensed it for use by other state high school basketball tournaments and by corporations.

Moreover, the NCAA did not originate the use of “March Madness” to promote its collegiate basketball tournament.  Rather, CBS broadcaster is credited with first using “March Madness” in 1982 to describe the tournament.  As CBS was licensed by the NCAA to air the tournament, the NCAA apparently claims that as its date of first use.

Finally, the NCAA was not the first to register “March Madness” as a trademark.  That honor went to a company called Intersport, Inc., which used the mark for sports programs it produced and registered the mark in 1989.

So, how did the NCAA get to claim ownership of the March Madness® trademark?  The short answer is through litigation and negotiations over a period of many years.  Although it has also been able to obtain federal registrations for Final Four® and Elite Eight,® it was late to the gate and was unable to snag “Sweet Sixteen” or “Sweet 16,” which are registered to the Kentucky High School Athletic Association (KHSAA).  (The NCAA, however, has the KHSAA’s consent to register “NCAA Sweet Sixteen” and “NCAA Sweet 16.”)

The NCAA Aggressively Pursues Unauthorized Use of its Trademarks

Because it took the NCAA so long to assemble its trademark rights, it vigorously defends them.  The NCAA states that $867.5 M of its annual revenue comes from the licensing of television and marketing rights in the Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament.  In addition, it brings in almost $178 M in ticket sales.  Moreover, its returns from the tournament have historically grown each year.  Although most of this income comes from broadcast licensing fees, it also has a substantial amount of revenue from licensing March Madness® and its other marks for use by advertisers.  As part of those licenses, the NCAA agrees to stop non-authorized parties from using any of the marks.  Indeed, if the NCAA did not actively police the use of its marks by unauthorized companies, advertisers might not feel the need to get a license or, at least, to pay as much as they do for the license.  Thus, the NCAA has a strong incentive to put on a full court press to prevent non-licensees from associating their goods and services with the NCAA tournament through unauthorized use of its trademarks.

Accordingly, the NCAA is very serious about taking action against anyone who may try to trade off the goodwill in its marks — even if the NCAA’s actual marks are not used.  For example:

  • The NCAA filed a trademark infringement action in 2017 against a company that ran online sports-themed promotions and sweepstakes under the marks “April Madness” and “Final 3.” The defendant stipulated to an order providing that it would cease using those marks at least until the end of the year, but the order did not provide for dismissal of the case.  The defendant failed to file an answer to the complaint and the NCAA was granted a default judgment, after which it filed a motion requesting an award of attorneys’ fees against the defendant in the amount of $242,213.55.  In May 2018, the Court found the infringement to be willful and awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount of $220,998.05.
  • The NCAA sued a car dealership that had registered and was using the mark “Markdown Madness” in advertising. (The case was settled.)
  • Even schools that are part of the NCAA are not immune from claims of infringement. Seven years after the Big Ten Conference started using the mark “March Is On!,” the NCAA opposed an application to have that mark federally registered.  (Ultimately, the opposition was withdrawn, the mark was registered, but the registration was assigned to the NCAA.)
  • Just in the last twelve months, the NCAA has filed oppositions to applications to register the following marks: MARCH MODNESS (online modeling contests); MOWER MADNESS (podcasts about outdoor power equipment); MIDDLE SCHOOL MADNESS (basketball camps), SPRING MADNESS (soccer tournaments), MARSH MADNESS (for electronic cigarette refills), MOTOR CITY MADNESS (athletic contests, providing sports information via the Internet and clothing) and MARCH MULLIGANS (online electronic sweepstakes and contests).  (It should be noted that, before these marks were published for opposition, Trademark Attorneys at the PTO concluded that each of these marks was not confusingly similar to any registered marks.)

These actions illustrate the level of importance that the NCAA places on acting against the use or registration of trademarks which it views as being likely to create an association with its annual Collegiate Basketball Tournament.  Clearly, such activities carry great risks

Tomorrow, we’ll provide some specific examples of actions built around the tournament that could attract the unwanted attention of the NCAA.  Check back for those examples.

Photo of Mitchell Stabbe Mitchell Stabbe

Mitchell Stabbe has over thirty years of experience in virtually all aspects of trademark law. Over the course of his career, Mitch has experienced numerous changes in trademark law and in technology, with the former often several steps behind the latter. Today, his…

Mitchell Stabbe has over thirty years of experience in virtually all aspects of trademark law. Over the course of his career, Mitch has experienced numerous changes in trademark law and in technology, with the former often several steps behind the latter. Today, his practice focuses on the ever-evolving interplay between trademarks and the Internet. Over the last few years, for example, Mitch has regularly advised clients and provided comments to ICANN concerning the roll-out of hundreds of new generic top level domains (gTLDs) and the protections available to brand owners against cybersquatting and other domain name abuses.

Mitch also counsels clients on the availability and registration of trademarks and service marks and has prosecuted over a thousand applications before the US Patent and Trademark Office. He also is experienced in drafting and negotiating contracts, licenses, assignments and security interests involving intellectual property rights.

Mitch has litigated numerous trademark and copyright infringement and unfair competition civil actions in federal court, including actions against infringers and gray market importers, as well as adversary proceedings in federal court and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). In addition, he has successfully prosecuted over fifty claims under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to compel the transfer of domain names registered in bad faith.

He has represented companies from a wide array of industries, including communications, media, publishing, technology, education, not-for-profit associations, real estate leasing, banking, and premium cigars.

Read more about Mitchell StabbeEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property, Sports and Gaming
  • Blog:
    Broadcast Law Blog
  • Organization:
    David Oxenford, Esq
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo