Huntington Beach Bad Boy Hauled Away By Huntington Beach Police

Tito Ortiz was arrested today for allegedly assaulting Jenna Jameson--the mother of his twin sons. 

I don't anticipate following this story closely as there is no way I can keep up with TMZ.com which already has 4 updates including videos of Tito being led away in cuffs and a tearful Jenna saying she'll press charges

Who knew that a domestic altercation between a cage fighter/Celebrity Apprentice contestant and the "world's most famous porn star" would attract the papparazzi?

More on MMA in New York

When I recently wrote that Assemblyman Kenneth Zebrowski was the first New York legislator to come out in support of the bill to regulate mixed martial arts, I did not give proper credit to Rob Walker and Johnathan Bing, the two Assemblymen who co-sponsored the bill.  To learn more about  Walker and Bing click the links to their interviews with CagePotato.com from March 2009. 

Mixed Martial Arts in Massachusetts

A Massachusetts blog that keeps a close eye on government happenings has reported that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed into law a bill making the Bay State the 42nd state to regulate mixed martial arts.

MMALB has not been able to confirm the signing, but even if it has not yet occurred, it seems to be only a matter of time.  According to the official history of the bill, the Massachusetts Senate passed a draft 35-1, and the House of Representatives approved a modified version 144-10.   The Senate concurred in an amendment made by the House, and the bill went before the Governor on November 23, 2009.  

Dana White is excited that the UFC will get to promote an event in his former hometown, and he should be equally excited about the manner in which the bill has sailed through the Massachusetts Legislature.  With the oft-discussed New York bill still in limbo, having 94% of legislators supporting the bill in a nearby state can only help the cause.

A Mixed Martial Arts Promotion By Any Other Name...

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.

Fighters "Afflicted" by Cancellation of Trilogy

The third time was most definitely not the charm.  Affliction: Trilogy went from looking for a new main event opponent, to looking for a new date for the event, to looking like a cautionary tale for anyone who thinks they can compete with the UFC.  In a classic case of "if you can't beat 'em . . . " Affliction has agreed to shut down its MMA promotional venture and in turn will be allowed to again sponsor UFC fighters.  (FightLine.com has a full timeline on the death of Affliction here.)  

A little more than a year ago, Affliction had tons of publicity for its first event and even had the backing of Donald Trump.  Today, if you visit Affliction's website, it's hard to find evidence that the T-Shirt company ever promoted an MMA event.

The cancellation of its third show might not have been bad news for Affliction as it reportedly lost money on its previous events and (even before the Barnett steroids scandal) may have been looking for the UFC to take over Trilogy and promote it.  It was, however, definitely bad news for all of the fighters who were scheduled to participate in the August 1st contest.

Many casual MMA fans don't realize that while some fighters make significant sums for appearing on televised cards, they have to pay all of their own expenses.  The athlete (not the promoter for the event) pays for his trainers, his gym time, his equipment, and everything else that goes into getting ready for a match.  A lot of these funds are "sunk costs" that have to be paid even if the event gets canceled.  Its no wonder that one prominent gym was "like a funeral" after Friday's announcement.

One fighter's manager told Sherdog.com that nothing in the Affliction contract gives the fighter any recourse at this point.  That may be the case (I've not seen the contract), but I suspect that litigation will still be forthcoming.  Unless the contract specifically addresses the shuttering of the organization, an argument could be made that Affliction violated the "good faith and fair dealing" obligation that most states' courts read into contacts.  And, if Affliction was really looking to get out of the promotional business as early as October, someone may allege that the company got fighters to sign up for Trilogy under false pretenses.  In short, while Affliction may have had its last fight on pay-per-view, its fights in court may be just beginning.

"UFC" - What Does it Stand For?

In the Complaint filed in the Ibarra vs. Ortiz, et. al. defamation lawsuit, Ibarra's counsel refers to Quinton "Rampage" Jackson as "a prominent figure in the Ultimate Fighting Champion industry." While I'm not sure if this was a reference to the Zuffa-owned Ultimate Fighting Championship or the broader industry of mixed martial arts, the unusual choice of words did remind me the I first heard the UFC referenced in a trial--back in December 2006.

Our client had been assaulted by carnival workers at a fair.  Our star witness was a member of the Army who practiced MMA in his spare time.  He stumbled onto the assault, grounded some carnies, and may have saved our client's life.  The defense attorney discovered the witness's MySpace page, which prominently featured Chuck Liddell and other UFC images. His cross examination began like this:

Attorney: Do you have pictures from something called the U-F-C on your MySpace page?

Witness: Yes.

Attorney: What does that stand for?

Witness:  The Ultimate Fighting Championship.

Attorney:  And does U-F-C also stand for Ultimate Fight... CLUB!

Witness:  No.

This was followed by a long, awkward pause.  

Unlike the witness (and me), opposing counsel was obviously not counting the days until the upcoming Liddell-Ortiz rematch.

Intellectual Property Rights and the UFC Standard Contract

I guest authored a piece about the Intellectual Propery provisions in the standard UFC agreement that is currently the lead article on MMAPayout.com.  A direct link is available here.

MMAJunkie.com has also picked up my post on Josh Neer.  They have added some details (including a quote from Neer's manager) in this article.

Trademarks, Copyrights and the U(C)FC

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.