Turner Padget Insights
Navigating Athletes' Trademarks and NIL Rights in an Evolving Legal Landscape
Posted On April 9, 2025
The final approval hearing of a long-awaited settlement agreement in a case significantly impacting collegiate athlete compensation was held this week, just hours before the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship in San Antonio. Although the settlement is still being tweaked, the case, House v. NCAA, changes the game for student-athletes who wish to benefit from using their name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights. While the judge indicated that some aspects of the proposed settlement may require clarification, the broader implications raise important questions about how athlete branding intersects with school-owned intellectual property.
The Intersection of NIL and Trademarks
Trademarks are an essential part of brand recognition, especially in sports. In professional sports, athletes and teams trademark their names, logos, and other distinctive identifiers to protect and capitalize on their brand value. Similarly, college athletes – especially in the wake of the House v. NCAA settlement – are gaining expanded opportunities to profit from their NIL. Collegiate student-athletes can engage in endorsement deals, sponsorships, and social media branding, turning their personas into marketable assets. Many are turning to trademark registration to reinforce and protect their personal brands.
The current legal landscape, shaped by House and its predecessor cases, creates new opportunities for athletes to protect their personal brands through trademark registration. College athletes – and, in some states, high school players – will file trademarks for their names, logos, or catchphrases, which can be licensed to third parties just as with professional athletes.
However, complexities remain around how schools and athletes navigate the overlap between institutional IP and personal brand-building, especially when athletes seek to leverage their association with school programs.
Trademark Protection Challenges
While House v. NCAA may reshape athlete compensation structures, it doesn’t address IP conflicts between an individual student-athlete and its team or even the NCAA. IP rights remain governed by trademark law and existing licensing frameworks and fail to address the use of institutional trademarks (such as a school’s logo or team colors, for example) by an individual student-athlete monetizing their NIL.
For example, a college athlete could trademark their name and likeness, but using these trademarks could lead to potential clashes with school-owned IP if they are heavily associated with a specific university or team.
As a result, the use of trademarks that athletes create – especially in connection with school logos, uniforms, or other institutional identifiers – may be subject to negotiation with the universities or conferences involved. Some universities have taken proactive steps to support athletes in protecting their IP, offering resources for trademark filings and legal guidance to help ensure that NIL activities comply with state laws and NCAA regulations.
Potential Challenges and Opportunities for Athletes
One key challenge that athletes may face is navigating the complexities of intellectual property law. Athletes may need legal guidance to ensure their personal trademarks are adequately protected and do not infringe on the trademarks of their university or team.
Moreover, athletes may become more entrepreneurial as they explore new revenue streams through trademark licensing. Athletes could license their personal trademarks to clothing companies, video games, or digital media platforms, monetizing their NIL and personal brands more effectively.
Conversely, as the trademark landscape becomes more crowded with personal athletes’ brands, there could be confusion or legal disputes over competing trademarks. Universities may also seek to claim a share of revenue from athlete-related trademarks if they feel the institution's trademark has played a significant role in an athlete’s branding. This dynamic could complicate the landscape further, requiring more transparent agreements and protections around trademark ownership.
Conclusion
The House v. NCAA settlement represents a watershed moment for college athletes in terms of the commercialization of their NIL. While it primarily addresses compensation for student-athletes, the NIL conversation raises important questions about trademark law as athletes gain greater control over their personal brands. As they begin monetizing their NIL, student-athletes will face opportunities and challenges in protecting and licensing their intellectual property. The interplay between athlete trademarks and institutional rights will become a key legal and commercial dynamic in college sports over the coming years.
