Cleveland Guardians Sue Cleveland Guardians for Rights to Team Name

  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.
·5 min read
In this article:
  • Oops!
    Something went wrong.
    Please try again later.

Two sports franchises sharing the same name isn’t unprecedented. Just ask the New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants, the Los Angeles Kings and the Sacramento Kings, the New York Jets and the Winnipeg Jets or the St. Louis Cardinals and the Arizona Cardinals.

But two in the same city? That might be pushing it too far.

More from

At least that’s what the Cleveland Guardians, a flat-track roller derby team, argue in a federal complaint, filed on Wednesday in Ohio.

The Guardians are suing the Cleveland Indians, which intend to switch their name at the conclusion of the 2021 baseball season, for trademark infringement, misappropriation, deceptive practices and other claims. The Guardians seek a jury trial and demand, among remedies, an injunction that would block the Indians from using Guardians.

The Guardians are a non-profit, adult co-ed amateur team that competes against other roller derby teams from the U.S. and Canada. The team’s complaint, which is signed by attorney Christopher Pardo, on behalf of the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth, says the team has used the name for more than seven years, including to distinguish itself with consumers and sell hats, t-shirts and assorted merchandise. The team had not sought to register a trademark until the Indians went public in July with their name plan.

The complaint portrays the Indians as relying on deceptive, almost clandestine moves to snag the Guardians name. It complains that instead of contacting the Guardians about their name plans, the Indians “surreptitiously” filed a trademark application for Guardians on April 8 in the tiny island nation of Mauritius. The move was likely designed to establish a priority date, which refers to the earliest trademark application filed in any country, for later use in its application to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Not surprisingly, the move in Mauritius went unnoticed by American media and other observers.

It wasn’t until June 10, the Guardians say, that the Indians contacted them about a possible name change. An attorney for the Indians and Guardians principal, Gary Sweatt, then exchanged emails about the Indians’ interest in potentially acquiring the Guardians’ intellectual property. The emails included exchanges of photos of the Guardians’ merchandise, including their logo.

Sweatt became concerned that the Indians intended to use the Guardians name regardless of whether they reached a resolution. He worried people would gradually “think that his ‘Cleveland Guardians’ had stolen their name from the far-more-famous baseball team.” As the complaint retells history, Smith proposed selling his team’s IP—including the domain name,— to the Indians and pledged to then rebrand his roller derby team. However, the Indians “offered to pay a nominal amount, likely no more than fifteen minutes of annual team revenue,” the complaint said.

Sweatt rejected that offer and counteroffered. He insists the Indians never responded to the counteroffer. On July 22, the Indians announced their name change plans and introduced a logo, which the Guardians say looks “remarkably similar” to their own.

As explained in more detail on Sportico, the Guardians roller derby team has both advantages and disadvantages under federal trademark law. Working in the team’s favor is that U.S. trademark law normally awards trademarks on a “first-to-use,” rather than “first-to-file” basis. The Guardians have a compelling argument: They used the name in associated commercial practices long before the Indians, which have not yet swapped names. On the other hand, by filing first, the Indians’ application will be reviewed first by USPTO trademark examiners. The federal registration process could take years, depending on challenges and objections.

Alexandra Roberts, a trademark law expert at UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law and author of Athlete Trademarks: Names, Nicknames, & Catchphrases, previously told Sportico that there might not be a trademark conflict. She stressed the key question is whether there is a likelihood of confusion. While both are sports teams, their sports and mode of operation (one is a pro team worth $1.375 billion, the other is an amateur team) are very different.

The roller derby team clearly believe there is confusion, and that it will only get worse. The word “confusion,” in fact, appears 16 times in the Guardians’ 20-page complaint. “[J]ust the Indians’ initial announcement (which was picked up by many media outlets),” the complaint charges, “already started causing the sorts of chaos, confusion and harm that would be expected if the two teams were to operate in the same city using identical names.”

While the two teams’ dispute over federal trademark registration will remain unresolved for a while, the Guardians contend the Indians are violating several laws. One is the federal Lanham Act, which restricts goods and services that are likely to cause consumer confusion as to their origin. The Guardians say they own common law trademark rights (which are not created through statute but rather through case precedent) in the name, in connection with a sports team in the Cleveland area, and the sale of related merchandise. The Guardians also raise several claims under Ohio law, including for trademark infringement and unfair competition. The team says the Indians are trying to “injure and misappropriate the reputation and goodwill” the Guardians have built over the years.

The Indians have not yet issued a statement in response to the lawsuit. They will have an opportunity to answer the complaint and raise defenses. The case has been assigned to Judge James Gwin, who presides at the Carl B. Stokes U.S. Court House in Cleveland.

As always with a complaint, it is merely one side’s telling of a dispute from that side’s perspective. It’s also worth noting the Guardians and Indians have held settlement talks. At any point they could strike a deal, thereby ending the litigation.

Best of