## Facts

- An NFL franchise known for decades as the “Baltimore Colts” relocated in 1984 to Indianapolis and became the “Indianapolis Colts.”
- In the early 1990s, the Canadian Football League granted Baltimore a new franchise.
- The new Baltimore CFL team initially used the name “Baltimore Colts,” then changed to “Baltimore CFL Colts” after legal threats.
- The Indianapolis Colts, the NFL, and NFL Properties sued under the Lanham Act to stop the CFL team and related defendants from using “Colts” in connection with professional football games, broadcasts, and merchandise.
- The district court in the Southern District of Indiana entered a preliminary injunction barring use of “Colts,” “Baltimore Colts,” and “Baltimore CFL Colts” in the professional football context.
- Defendants appealed; by that time, the CFL team had played games without a team name.

## Issues

1. Whether an Indiana federal court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Baltimore-based defendants based on their allegedly infringing activities.
2. Whether venue in the Southern District of Indiana was proper.
3. Whether use of “Baltimore CFL Colts” was likely to cause consumer confusion and thus infringe plaintiffs’ trademark rights under the Lanham Act, including in light of arguments that “Baltimore Colts” had been abandoned after the relocation.
4. Whether the preliminary injunction was impermissibly broad in restricting defendants’ use of “Colts.”

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held personal jurisdiction was proper because defendants purposefully directed commercial activity into Indiana, including through broadcasts and marketing that reached Indiana consumers.
- The court held venue in Indiana was proper based on defendants’ forum-directed activities and the locus of effects on plaintiffs.
- The court agreed plaintiffs showed a sufficient likelihood of confusion from “Baltimore CFL Colts,” including confusion as to affiliation with the Indianapolis Colts and confusion as to league identity.
- The court upheld an injunction barring use of “Colts” in a professional football team name and related football merchandising, while recognizing the term could be used in non-football contexts where confusion was unlikely.

## Legal Principles

- Personal jurisdiction may be based on forum-directed commercial conduct that creates foreseeable effects in the forum; physical presence is unnecessary when contacts reflect purposeful direction.
- Lanham Act infringement turns on likelihood of consumer confusion, including confusion about source, sponsorship, affiliation, or league membership.
- A relocated sports franchise can retain goodwill and public identification with its prior city history; later uses in the same market may unlawfully trade on residual associations if they create confusion.
- Even if a geographically specific mark is treated as abandoned, that does not permit a later entrant in the same field to use a confusingly similar designation without effective measures to prevent confusion.
- Consumer survey evidence can be central to likelihood-of-confusion determinations; courts assess survey design, neutrality, and probative value when weighing competing surveys.
- Injunctive relief in trademark cases should be limited to the contexts where confusion is likely; categorical bans are disfavored outside those contexts.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld preliminary injunctive relief barring Baltimore’s CFL franchise from using “Baltimore CFL Colts” (and “Colts” in the professional football setting) because plaintiffs demonstrated jurisdiction and venue in Indiana and a substantial likelihood that the name would confuse consumers about affiliation and league identity, warranting tailored restraint in the football marketplace.


Indianapolis Colts, Inc. v. Metropolitan Baltimore Football Club Ltd. P'ship, 34 F.3d 410 (7th Cir. 1994)