The Jets’ Legacy Logo Battle: Importance of Proper IP Protection in Expanding Licensed Sports Merchandise Market

By: Vanessa Wydeven*                                                                Posted: 03/05/2025

Professional sports team logos are some of the most recognizable and profitable symbols in the world, with the global market for licensed sports merchandise valued at $33.48 billion in 2022.[1]  Given the high level of familiarity and appreciation that sports teams’ logos acquire, an immense amount of work goes into creating such logos, thus teams and artists should seek a correspondingly high level of protection for these marks.[2]  Due to the distinctiveness of their logos, sports teams have historically refrained from rebranding and opted to stick with their tried and true symbols that are familiar to their hundreds of thousands of fans.[3]  However, with the increase in marketing channels, demand from fans, and faster and cheaper methods of production, sports teams, like many organizations, have seized the opportunity to capitalize on licensed products by releasing numerous variations and redesigns of their logos.[4]  While teams previously only had to establish intellectual property protection for their limited core designs and logo, teams must now seek trademark and copyright protection for all of their new designs, especially given that increasing merchandise sales revenues may motivate and encourage others to misappropriate such designs.[5]

Jim Pons’s Copyright and Trademark Lawsuit Over New York Jets’ Revived Logo

One of the many sports teams participating in the expanded and diversified branding trend is the NFL’s New York Jets, which announced in April 2024 that it was bringing back a modernized version of its legacy “sack exchange logo.”[6]  This particular logo was designed in the late seventies by Jim Pons, who was working as the Jets’ film and video director at the time.[7]  Upon learning that the team was soliciting proposals for a new logo from outside artists, Pons decided that he wanted a shot at the logo redesign, and the Jets ultimately picked Pons’s logo, using it from 1978 to 1997.[8]  

However, Pons’s initial excitement quickly gave way to feelings of exploitation and deceit when he realized that he would not be compensated for the revitalized use of his logo, nor his appearance in an interview discussing the legacy logo and its comeback.[9]  In July 2024, Pons filed a complaint against the NFL and the New York Jets in federal court, alleging that the Jets’ trademarked logo designed by Pons was fraudulently obtained and that the 2024 interview violated his right of publicity.[10]  In his complaint, Pons asked the court to provide relief by cancelling the trademark registration for the sack exchange logo and granting an injunction that prohibits the Jets from continuing to use the mark.[11]  Pons withdrew his original complaint in November 2024, and filed another lawsuit against the NFL and the Jets, alleging violation of copyright claims.[12] 

According to Pons’s complaint, the Jets never consulted him when they amended their trademark filing in 1978 to include Pons’s design, nor in 2022, when the Jets again filed and successfully registered Pons’s modernized logo and various corresponding merchandise.[13]  Pons’s frustration was further fueled by the fact that he was also not paid for the 2024 interview filmed at his Florida home regarding the legacy logo, thus adding a violation of Pons’s publicity rights to the suit.[14]  While the parties settled the lawsuit on Tuesday, January 21, 2025, Pons would have likely faced numerous obstacles had he pursued his case any further.[15]  

To start, at some point earlier in 2024, Pons also attempted to obtain the copyright for the logo, but his registration was subsequently rejected in September for failing to meet the originality or creative authorship standards.[16]  Additionally, since the Jets have had the logo registered as a trademark for nearly fifty years, the fact that Pons “waited decades to register his work or assert his rights,” would have likely hurt his case.[17]  Furthermore, the Jets could have plausibly argued that the logo was made within Pons’s scope of employment or as a work for hire, thus effectively assigning ownership of the design to the team.[18]  Yet, Pons apparently anticipated this defense, as he emphasized in his complaint that logo creation was not a part of his official job with the Jets.[19]  Rather it was “a project he undertook on his own initiative.”[20]  In general, Pons’s inability to secure the copyright would have significantly undermined his copyright infringement claims, while his lack of legal claim to the trademark would have seriously impeded his claim of fraudulent trademark registration.[21]

Baltimore Ravens’ Logo Copyright Lawsuit

While Pons faced many defenses that likely would have been difficult to defeat had he gone to court, amateur artists have prevailed against professional sports teams in the past, at least partially.[22]  In 1995, when the then-Cleveland Browns moved to Baltimore and became the Ravens, they naturally began looking for a new logo.[23]  Frederick Bouchat, a security guard and amateur artist living in Baltimore, learned of the Ravens logo search and submitted his proposed design to the Maryland Stadium Authority.[24]  A month after Bouchat’s submission, the Ravens revealed their “Flying B” logo, which Bouchat recognized as being essentially his design, and he subsequently brought suit against the Ravens, alleging copyright infringement.[25]

Although the jury ruled in Bouchat’s favor and the Ravens ceased use of the logo, Bouchat was not awarded any of the $10 million in damages he sought.[26]  Bouchat extended the dispute when he further attempted to prohibit much more limited uses of the logo by the Ravens, such as in documentary films and historical photographs, and well as in highlight reels of past seasons.[27]  The court ruled that the Ravens’ depiction of the logo in highlight reels shown on DVDs and at the stadium was commercial, not transformative, and thus was not fair use.[28]  However, the court refused to expand Bouchat’s monopoly over his design any further, finding that the Ravens’ fleeting depictions of the logo on team uniforms in historical films and photographs in exhibits did not constitute copyright infringement, as its use in a historical context to tell stories and convey factual content was sufficiently transformative.[29]

Importance of Proper IP Protection in Expanding Licensed Sports Merchandise Market

Pons’s and Bouchat’s cases highlight important aspects of copyright and trademark law that teams and artists should be aware of to ensure their ownership rights and protection over valuable designs, such as team logos.[30]  Due to the various obstacles that Pons faced, it was beneficial for Pons to settle given that his odds of winning appeared relatively low.[31]  However, if Pons would have been aware of his rights when he first designed the logo, the outcome may have been much different for him.[32]  Although the Jets likely paid Pons some amount of money in the settlement, it is almost certainly nowhere near the amount Pons could have received had he negotiated an up-front sale of his rights in the logo or a licensing agreement with the Jets.[33]

It is in the best interest of both sports teams and artists to implement a contract outlining the ownership of intellectual property rights and corresponding compensation.[34]  This ensures that the team will not face viable allegations of misappropriation or misuse of the work, while also protecting the artist’s rights and economic interests in their work.[35]  Once a contract has been established, it is essential for teams to promptly register any new brand identifying marks including logos, as well as “publicly associated catchphrases, nicknames, or slogans,” to secure exclusive use of such identifying marks.[36]  Obtaining trademark registration is typically necessary for teams to take full advantage of monetizing their brand, as this gives teams a legal, exclusive right of use which they can then license to other companies, such as those that produce team merchandise.[37]  As for copyright, if a team hires an outside designer or uses an internal design team to create new logo and merchandise designs, the authorship of all such works is automatically assigned to employers under the Copyright Act.[38]  However, it is still best practice for teams to formally register their copyrights when possible, as this establishes a public record, and will be required to bring a suit for copyright infringement if ever necessary.[39]

*Staff Writer, Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal, J.D. Candidate, May 2026, Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law.

[1] See Licensed Sports Merchandise Market Size, Share and Trends Analysis Report by Products (Sports Apparel, Toys and Games, Others), by Distribution Channel, by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2023-2030, Grand View Rsch. (Feb. 2023), https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/licensed-sports-merchandise-market-report#:~:text=The%20global%20licensed%20sports%20merchandise,regional%20and%20worldwide%20sports%20leagues (noting that industry has predicted compound annual growth rate of 4.9% from 2023 to 2030 due to factors such as rise in sports fans, expansion and modernization of online retailers, and general increase in regional and worldwide sports leagues); see also Design Review: Pro Sports Branding, Small Planet (Mar. 8, 2023), https://smallplanetapps.medium.com/design-review-pro-sports-branding-70cf790e2435 (noting that licensed sports merchandise market is projected to rise to $56 billion by 2033).

[2] See Taesoo Ahn, Young Ik Suh, Jin Kyun Lee & Paul M. Pendersen, Sports Fans and Their Teams' Redesigned Logos: An Examination of the Moderating Effect of Team Identification on Attitude and Purchase Intention of Team-Logoed Merchandise, J. Sports Mgmt. 11, 11 (2012) (stating that “logo design is one of the most imperative brand elements of a business entity” and that sale of logoed products is often major source of revenue for organizations).

[3] See Design Review: Pro Sports Branding, supra note 1 (explaining that teams’ products “used to center around a unified team identity,” typically resulting in relatively narrow selection of merchandise with standard look).

[4] See Ahn et al., supra note 2, at 11 (explaining market pressures pushing well-known companies to implement logo and brand redesigns and noting that sports teams are not exempt from such pressures); see also Design Review: Pro Sports Branding, supra note 1 (highlighting fact that teams must now cater to demands of increasingly diverse fan bases and demonstrating clear correlation between greater variation in branding and higher revenues, as fans will want to buy new, updated merchandise).

[5] See David Fish & Joseph Ford, The Intersection of Sports and Intellectual Property, Romano L. (Aug. 10, 2023), https://www.romanolaw.com/the-intersection-of-sports-and-intellectual-property/ (explaining that trademarks are used to protect brands’ logos, identities, and names, while copyright typically covers artwork in merchandise, broadcasts, and promotional videos).

[6] See Randy Lange, How a Rock 'n' Roller Brought the Jets' Sack Exchange Logo to Life, N.Y. Jets (Apr. 15, 2024, 10:00 AM), https://www.newyorkjets.com/news/jets-logo-new-uniforms-jim-pons (reporting Jets’ decision to revive their legacy logo designed by Jim Pons in late 1970s, stating “[t]he logo will be front and center, along with new uniforms, new secondary logos, and a new line of team merchandise”).  Apparently, the Jets had not consulted Pons before they decided to bring back his version of the Jets’ logo, with Pons stating that “[i]t was a huge surprise . . . . [and] [i]t came from out of nowhere.”  See id. (stating that Pons had no idea that Jets were considering reinstating his logo design).

[7] See id. (explaining Pons’s employment history with Jets, beginning as “office boy,” then moving up to assistant equipment manager, and finally acquiring position of Jets’ film and video director in 1975).

[8] See Michael Mccann, Jets Logo Sparks Federal Lawsuit Against NFL, Team, Sportico (July 2, 2024, 2:26 PM), https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/new-york-jets-logo-lawsuit-1234786438/ (describing how Pons entered running for Jets’ logo redesign and observing that many notable Jets players sported Pons’s sack exchange logo during years it was in use).

[9] See Kyle Janher, NY Jets Logo Lawsuit Confronts Question of Sports IP's Value, Bloomberg L. (Dec. 2, 2024, 5:33 AM), https://www.bloomberglaw.com/product/blaw/bloomberglawnews/bloomberg-law-news/X4OV0HE0000000#jcite (reciting Pons’s attorney’s statement that Jets “continue to take advantage of an unsuspecting elderly layperson” by misappropriating Pons’s logo for “enormous profit”); see also Mccann, supra note 8 (stating that Pons felt that Jets had acted dishonestly in regards to their use of Pons’s design).

[10] See Robert Freedman, Logo Creator Seeks Copyright in New Infringement Case Against Jets, Legal Dive (Dec. 2, 2025), https://www.legaldive.com/news/logo-creator-seeks-copyright-in-infringement-case-against-jets-pons-goldberg/734371/ (stating that Pons filed his complaint in federal court in July 2024).  Pons filed his original complaint with the U.S. District Court located in the Southern District of New York in July 2024, accusing “the [Jets] and the [NFL] of misappropriating the logo Pons designed, using fraud to trademark the design and engaging in unfair competition and unjust enrichment” pertaining to the team’s use of the sack exchange logo; Pons withdrew this complaint in November 2024.  See id. (discussing content and status of original complaint filed by Pons in July 2024).

[11] See id. (discussing relief requested by Pons in July 2024 complaint).

[12] See id. (stating that Pons filed his complaint in federal court in July 2024, which was later incorporated into lawsuit filed in November 2024).  Pons filed a second complaint, alleging copyright infringement, against the Jets and the NFL in November 2024; this updated complaint also incorporated the claims from the July 2024 complaint that was withdrawn.  See id. (explaining history and relationship between Pons’s November 2024 lawsuit against Jets and NFL, and complaint filed in July 2024).

[13] See Mccann, supra note 8 (noting that Pons was never made aware of Jets’ trademark filing for his sack exchange logo design, and that trademark was granted despite glaring factual inconsistencies); see also id. (explaining that, on trademark application, Jets claimed that sack exchange logo was used in commerce beginning in 1970, when Pons did not design logo until 1978). 

[14] See id. (explaining that Jets never paid Pons for use of his name, image, and likeness in interview concerning his logo design, and that video of interview is still available for viewing online, despite Pons’s violation of publicity rights allegations).

[15] See David Steele, NFL, Jets Settle with Man Claiming He Created Team Logo, Law360 (Jan. 21, 2025, 7:09 PM), https://www.law360.com/articles/2286920/nfl-jets-settle-with-man-claiming-he-created-team-logo (stating that, on January 21, 2025, Jets settled copyright infringement suit brought by Pons).  Although no details were given regarding Pons’s requested damages or the proposed settlement, Pons previously pointed out the lucrativeness of the NFL’s merchandising business and the large profits earned via merchandise sales since 2020.  See id. (discussing Pons’s previous claim that “since 2020, the NFL’s merchandising sales have produced between $93,750,000 and $125,000,000 per year”); see also Freedman supra, note 10 (“Attorneys say Pons faces a tough road to prevail.”).

[16] See Steele, supra note 15 (noting Pons’s copyright application was rejected for not having met criteria for originality or creative authorship, despite Jets acknowledging that Pons designed logo); see also Janher, supra note 9 (explaining Copyright Office rejected Pons’s registration on September 6, 2024 for being insufficiently creative).

[17] See Janher, supra note 9 (suggesting that Pons’s lack of timeliness could have been initial bar to his suit before any substantive matters were even addressed); see also Mccann, supra note 8 (explaining that Jets may have attempted to assert applicable statute of limitations to bar Pons’s complaint).

[18] See Freedman, supra note 10 (explaining Jets’ potential argument that Pons’s design constitutes work for hire owned by team because Pons was employee of team when he created design).

[19] See id. (noting that Jets did not ask Pons to design logo, rather Pons chose to do so on his own accord).

[20] See Mccann, supra note 8 (demonstrating that Pons, although amateur, decided to try his luck at logo design when he heard that Jets were reaching out to professional graphic artists); see also Jahner, supra note 9 (noting that this may have been more difficult argument for Jets as it hinged on “the nature of [Pons’s] job and the works’ creation”).

[21] See Freedman, supra note 10 (stating that Jets could have also highlighted Pons’s failed copyright registration had case gone to trial); see also Janher, supra note 9 (explaining that challenge to trademark registration usually requires some trademark interest in mark, which Pons does not possess).

[22] See Jon Alfano, Jets Logo Controversy Brings Back Ravens Memories, Sports Illustrated (July 2, 2024), https://www.si.com/nfl/ravens/news/jets-logo-controversry-brings-back-baltimore-ravens-memories (stating that, although designer Frederick Bouchat technically won case against Ravens, he never received any damages).

[23] See Lorraine Bailey, Old NFL Ravens Logo Won't Cost Team Again, Courthouse News Serv. (Dec. 19, 2013), https://www.courthousenews.com/old-nfl-ravens-logo-wont-cost-team-again/ (giving context behind search for new Ravens logo).

[24] See Alfano, supra note 22 (explaining Bouchat’s background and his formal design submission, sent via fax machine).  Bouchat was employed as a security guard elsewhere and was not affiliated with the Ravens prior to his design submission.  See id. (clarifying Bouchat’s relationship with Ravens).

[25] See Bailey, supra note 23 (noting that Bouchat accused Ravens of stealing his design).

[26] See Alfano, supra note 22 (stating that Bouchat was never compensated despite winning case); see also Jahner, supra note 9 (pointing out that Bouchat’s case demonstrates that damages can be difficult to prove in copyright infringement cases).

[27] See Associated Press, Appeals Court Rules Against Ravens, ESPN (Sept. 2, 2010, 4:40 PM), https://www.espn.com/nfl/news/story?id=5524391 (explaining appellate court’s rulings on Bouchart’s additional copyright infringement claims were provided almost one decade after his initial suit).

[28] See id. (“Simply filming football games that include the copyrighted logo does not transform the purpose behind the logos’ use into a historical one.”); see also NFL Beats Infringement Claim for Use of Ravens Logo in Historical Film and Exhibit, Cowan, DeBaets, Abrahams & Sheppard (Jan. 24, 2014) https://cdas.com/nfl-beats-infringement-claim-use-ravens-logo-historical-film-exhibit/#:~:text=Bouchat%20also%20challenged%20the%20use,%2C%20de%20minimis%2C%20innocuous (noting Court’s further comment that “the logo was shown again and again, always as brand identifier, for the Ravens organization and its players”).

[29] See NFL Beats Infringement Claim for Use of Ravens Logo in Historical Film and Exhibit, supra note 28 (noting Court’s finding that Ravens’ use of logo in historical context was transformative as well as de minimis).

[30] See Igor Demcak, The Role of Trademarks in Sports: How Athletes and Teams Protect Their Brands, TramaTM (Aug. 2023), https://www.tramatm.com/blog/category/media/the-role-of-trademarks-in-sports-how-athletes-and-teams-protect-their-brands (explaining some primary benefits trademarks provide to sports teams, including brand recognition, commercial value, and protection against unauthorized use).

[31] See Freedman, supra note 10 (noting numerous factors working against Pons in his suit against Jets, including lack of copyright registration, significant time gap between design creation and Pons’s assertion of his rights, Pons’s previous employment with Jets, and Jets’ ownership of trademark registration of logo and related merchandise).

[32]  See Jahner, supra note 9 (indicating that Pons should have pursued his rights long ago); see also Bailey, supra note 23 (noting that Bouchat promptly filed his complaint against Ravens once he learned of their use of his logo, which likely helped his case).

[33] See Mccann, supra note 8 (noting Pons’s contention that, since 2023, reissued design alone has made Jets hundreds of millions of dollars “via licensing, advertising and merchandise sales”).

[34] See Tim J. Billick, How Entertainment Contracts Protect Both Artists and Companies, Practus (Feb. 1, 2023), https://practus.com/how-entertainment-contracts-protect-both-artists-and-companies/ (noting that such contracts function to protect both artists and companies and emphasizing importance of contracts when dealing with IP “[b]ecause what constitutes intellectual property and what does not is usually extremely difficult to differentiate in the entertainment and creative space”).

[35] See Understanding Intellectual Property in Entertainment Law, Univ. Pitt. Sch. L. (Dec. 18, 2024), https://online.law.pitt.edu/blog/intellectual-property-in-entertainment-law (stating such IP protection allows artists to receive payment for use of their work and highlighting consequences of IP infringement).

[36] See Justin M. Jacobson, Sports Law – “Brand” and Name Protection for Professional and College Athletes, Justin Jacobson L., PC, https://jmjesq.com/trademark-law-professional-sports-athletes/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2025) (explaining trademark registrations can go beyond brand and team names to include any word, phrase, logo, sound, design or combination that general public identifies with organization).

[37] See Demcak, supra note 30 (discussing how teams can leverage their trademarks for licensing and endorsement deals as well as to prevent counterfeiting).

[38] See Belle Wong, Does Your Employer Own Intellectual Property You Create?, Legal Zoom (Apr. 18, 2023), https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/does-your-employer-own-intellectual-property-you-create (explaining that employers own copyright rights in all works made for hire, such as those specifically commissioned, and those created by employees within scope of their employment).

[39] See Copyright Registration at a Glance, U.S. Copyright Off. 1–2 (Dec. 2022), https://www.copyright.gov/engage/docs/registration.pdf (explaining benefits of copyright registration).