## Facts

- The National Hockey League (NHL) and thirteen member teams used distinctive team symbols (logos) to identify their teams and hockey entertainment services.
- Most teams held federal registrations for their symbols as service marks for ice hockey entertainment services; some also held trademark registrations for certain goods. The symbols were not copyrighted.
- The teams appointed National Hockey League Services, Inc. (NHLS) as their exclusive licensing agent for the teams’ names and symbols and licensed manufacturers to place the symbols on merchandise, including embroidered emblems.
- Dallas Cap & Emblem Manufacturing, Inc., a company making embroidered cloth emblems, sought licenses from NHLS in 1968 and 1971 and was refused.
- In 1972, Dallas Cap began manufacturing and selling embroidered patches that substantially duplicated NHL team symbols, distributing them through retail outlets for consumers to attach to clothing.
- The patches’ market value derived from public recognition and goodwill associated with the NHL teams and their symbols.
- The district court denied Lanham Act relief, but granted limited injunctive relief under unfair competition by requiring a disclaimer stating the patches were not authorized.
- The NHL and teams appealed, seeking Lanham Act relief and broader injunctive protection.

## Issues

1. Whether registered team symbols used as service marks for hockey entertainment could be enforced under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 against unauthorized reproduction on embroidered patches sold as goods.
2. Whether exact duplication of the symbols on patches constituted false designation of origin or false description under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), even without an explicit statement about source.
3. Whether a disclaimer-based injunction sufficiently addressed likely consumer confusion and the unauthorized exploitation of the plaintiffs’ marks.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the denial of Lanham Act relief.
- The court held Dallas Cap’s unauthorized duplication infringed plaintiffs’ registered marks under § 1114 and violated § 1125(a).
- The court found plaintiffs had a protectable interest in their individualized team symbols extending to preventing unauthorized reproduction on merchandise such as embroidered patches.
- The court concluded the district court’s disclaimer remedy was inadequate and that broader injunctive relief was required.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on damages and related relief.

## Legal Principles

- A registered service mark may be infringed when a defendant uses the mark on goods in commerce in a way likely to cause consumer confusion as to sponsorship or authorization, not merely as to the physical manufacturer.
- Exact duplication of a well-known symbol used to identify the mark owner can support a likelihood-of-confusion finding where consumers would naturally assume the goods are officially licensed or approved.
- “Origin” under § 1125(a) may encompass the source of the goodwill and identity signified by the mark, making unauthorized replication on merchandise actionable as false designation of origin or false description.
- Disclaimers may be insufficient where the defendant’s product value depends on the copied mark and the duplication itself implies authorization; injunctive relief may properly bar continued manufacture and sale of the infringing goods.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that selling embroidered patches bearing unauthorized, exact copies of NHL team logos infringed registered marks and constituted false designation of origin, and it required injunctive relief stronger than a disclaimer because consumers were likely to perceive the patches as officially sponsored or authorized.


Boston Professional Hockey Ass’n, Inc. v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc., 510 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir. 1975)