## Facts

- Delaware created a state-run football lottery, “Scoreboard,” consisting of three weekly games tied to regularly scheduled NFL games: “Football Bonus,” “Touchdown,” and “Touchdown II.”
- The lottery used the NFL’s publicly disseminated schedules and game results and generally identified teams by city names, though the connection to NFL contests was apparent.
- The NFL alleged reputational and goodwill harm from association with gambling and introduced survey evidence that many members of the public believed the NFL sponsored or approved the lottery.
- The NFL sought preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to stop the lottery and requested a constructive trust over lottery revenues.
- The court denied a temporary restraining order; later dismissed the NFL’s Equal Protection and Commerce Clause claims; and tried the remaining claims in a six-day bench trial.
- The post-trial judgment addressed misappropriation and unfair competition theories, state statutory compliance, and whether federal anti-gambling statutes provided a private remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether Delaware’s use of publicly available NFL schedules, scores, and the League’s popularity in a lottery constituted actionable misappropriation or unfair competition.
2. Whether the lottery’s design and promotion created a misleading impression of NFL sponsorship or approval, and what relief was warranted.
3. Whether “Touchdown II” complied with Delaware’s statutory requirement that at least 45% of lottery revenues be paid out as prizes.
4. Whether federal anti-gambling statutes implied a private cause of action allowing the NFL to enjoin the lottery.

## Decision

- The court held that Delaware did not misappropriate NFL “property” by using widely disseminated schedules and scores and the general popularity of NFL games.
- The court found the State failed to adequately avoid a false impression of NFL sponsorship or association and ordered limited injunctive relief requiring prominent disclaimers on tickets, advertising, and other public materials.
- The court held “Touchdown II” invalid under Delaware law because its fixed-payoff structure could result in prize payouts below the statutory minimum percentage.
- The court held the NFL had no implied private cause of action under federal anti-gambling laws, even assuming a violation.
- The court denied broader relief (including shutting down the entire lottery and imposing a constructive trust over revenues) and entered an order consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Publicly available facts (such as sports schedules and scores once disseminated) are not exclusive property interests that can be monopolized through common-law misappropriation.
- Use of popular public events as the reference point for a commercial product, without use of exclusive or confidential information, does not by itself establish misappropriation.
- When a state-run product creates a substantial risk of consumer confusion about sponsorship or endorsement, narrowly tailored injunctive relief—such as clear disclaimers—may be appropriate.
- State lottery operations must comply with statutory payout requirements; a game design that can fall below a mandated minimum payout is unlawful and may be enjoined.
- Federal anti-gambling statutes do not necessarily confer an implied private right of action on private parties seeking to enjoin alleged violations.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Delaware to continue football-based lottery games using publicly available NFL schedules and results, but required prominent disclaimers to prevent false impressions of NFL endorsement and enjoined the “Touchdown II” game for violating Delaware’s statutory minimum prize-payout requirement, while rejecting misappropriation and federal anti-gambling-law private-action theories.


Nat’l Football League v. Governor of Del., 435 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Del. 1977)