## Facts

- Major League Baseball entities historically used “opening day” to describe the first regular-season game, using the phrase in schedules, publicity, and fan communications in a descriptive sense.
- In 1990, Opening Day Productions, Inc. (OD) proposed an MLB-wide, single-sponsor “Opening Day” marketing campaign and merchandise concept; negotiations ended without a final agreement.
- In 1994, OD applied to register “OPENING DAY” for clothing and related goods.
- Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. (MLBP) and the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (BOC) later formed a sponsorship promotion with TruServ/True Value that included “Opening Day” marketing and distribution of promotional items such as caps bearing “Opening Day.”
- BOC opposed OD’s trademark application; OD threatened litigation, claiming MLB’s promotional and apparel use infringed OD’s asserted rights.
- MLBP and BOC sued for declaratory relief and dismissal of OD’s asserted rights; OD counterclaimed and filed third-party claims against TruServ alleging Lanham Act violations, New York unfair competition, fraud/bad faith, and breach of contract based on the 1990 discussions.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether “OPENING DAY,” as used for baseball-related promotions and apparel, is protectable as a trademark (or instead generic or merely descriptive without secondary meaning).
2. Whether MLBP/BOC’s “Opening Day” promotional use created a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act.
3. Whether the 1990 negotiations created an enforceable contract or other actionable obligations supporting OD’s breach-of-contract theory.
4. Whether OD produced legally sufficient evidence of fraud or bad-faith misappropriation, and whether OD’s New York unfair-competition claims could survive absent protectable rights or bad faith.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for MLBP and BOC and denied OD’s cross-motion.
- The court held OD lacked exclusive trademark rights in “OPENING DAY” for the relevant goods and promotions.
- The court held MLBP/BOC’s use of “Opening Day” in season-opening promotions did not infringe or falsely designate origin under the Lanham Act.
- The court dismissed OD’s counterclaims and third-party claims, including contract, fraud, and New York unfair-competition theories.

## Legal Principles

- Generic terms—those naming a class or category—are not protectable trademarks, and descriptive terms require proof of secondary meaning to be enforceable.
- A plaintiff alleging infringement must show a valid, protectable mark and a likelihood of consumer confusion as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the nonmovant cannot produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find protectability, secondary meaning, or likely confusion.
- Preliminary negotiations and incomplete discussions do not create an enforceable contract absent mutual assent to definite essential terms.
- Fraud requires a specific material misrepresentation of present fact, reasonable reliance, and resulting injury; generalized negotiation statements and unproven “idea theft” are insufficient.
- New York unfair-competition and misappropriation claims generally require a protectable proprietary interest or bad-faith misappropriation; claims duplicative of failed trademark theories typically fail absent independent wrongdoing.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that “Opening Day” functioned as a generic or descriptive baseball term, not OD’s source identifier, and OD failed to show secondary meaning or likely confusion; because no enforceable 1990 agreement or actionable fraud/bad faith was shown, OD’s federal and state claims were dismissed on summary judgment.


Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Opening Day Prods., Inc., 385 F. Supp. 2d 256 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)