Mixed Martial Arts Law Blog : Mixed Martial Arts Lawyer & Attorney : David Nelmark : Belin Lamson McCormick Zumbach Flynn Law Firm : Intellectual Property, Media Law : Des Moines, Iowa

In July, I blogged about the Ultimate Cage Fighting Challenge's possible infringement of the UFC's trademark and predicted that when the UCFC's website resurfaced it would be under a new name.  From the new version of the website it appears that the UCFC is now the XCFC (Xtreme Cage Fighting Challenge).

The XCFC homepage discusses a September 19 event, but the XCFC Facebook event page indicates that the event was moved to November 13, 2009.  The name of the organization and the event name (The Backyard Battle) remained the same, so intellectual property issues do not appear to have played any role in the postponement. 

There is already an XCC (Xtreme Cagefighting Championship) based in Michigan, but they are less likely to make a trademark claim than the UFC.   Trademark laws are governed by both federal and state law.  (State trademarks can usually be obtained quickly and easily, but provide less protection than federal marks.)  Since the UFC has a federal trademark, it can prevent any confusingly similar uses anywhere in the country.  In the absence of a federal trademark, a promotion can typically only go after competitors in its own state (absent certain circumstances that would still provide for cross-border confusion.) 

It remains to be seen whether the XCF (based in Missouri) which does have a federal trademark for "XCF Xtreme Cagefighting Federation") will make a claim against the XCFC or XCC. 

The bottom line here is that trademark law is murky and any promotion looking to protect its brand (or avoid stepping on the toes of someone else) should seek professional guidance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recent "Ultimate Cage Fighting Challenge" event in Pittsburgh has drawn the ire of the UFC.  As UFC Vice President of Regulatory Affairs Marc Ratner told MMAJunkie.com, "There's nothing wrong with [competition]. But there's some copyright infringement problems when they call themselves the UCFC."

I'm a long-time fan of Ratner, but he makes a common mistake in his statement.  What the UFC is really concerned about here is trademark infringement not copyright infringement.   Trademarks cover things that identify the source of goods and services. Examples include the UFC name and logo, and its slogans like "As Real As it Gets."  Copyrights protect works of art such as posters or DVDs.  (Patents--the third major arm of Intellectual Property--protect things like inventions, chemical compounds, and processes.)

In any event, the UCFC guys are in hot water.   While their official name includes "Challenge," other websites referred to their event as the "Ultimate Cage Fighting Championship."  Whether this resulted from internal references using the term "Championship" (such uses were reported by MMAJunkie.com) or was just a mistake on the part of third parties, it will help the UFC demonstrate the "likelihood of confusion" needed to prove trademark infringement.  And, even if the term Challenge had consistently been used, "UCFC" cuts a little too close to "UFC," especially when your event features an appearance by Tito Ortiz.

The UCFC website is currently down, bearing the message "Our site is currently being upgraded. Sorry for the inconvenience."   I suspect the "upgrade" will involve a pretty significant name change. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link