Los Angeles Clippers Archives - Order On the court

The Biden administration has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to environmental justice and climate change, generating some hope of increased momentum toward environmentally-minded legislation. For the sports world, this may mean more legislation encouraging or requiring the reduction of organizations’ impact on the environment. Specifically, these changes may occur in the infrastructure and maintenance of sports venues. Currently, there are several ballparks, arenas, and stadiums under construction across the United States. For example, David Beckham’s soccer-specific stadium Miami Freedom Park is scheduled to open in 2022 while the currently under construction multi-purpose Protective Stadium is set to become the UAB Blazers football program’s home later this summer.

The 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is foundational in environmental policy law. The act requires federal agencies to consider the environmental implications of their proposed actions. These actions may include: decisions on permit applications, adopting federal law management actions, and constructing highways or other publicly owned facilities. Throughout his presidency, the Trump administration conducted several environmental rollbacks that have made significant cuts in the NEPA and affected the building industry.

Last June, the Trump administration signed an executive order that weakened clean air and climate change regulations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The executive order waived parts of the NEPA to speed up infrastructure projects by citing economic arguments in light of the pandemic induced financial crisis. The New York Times highlighted that lawyers and activists questioned the legality of such an order and suggested that the administration used the pandemic to speed up slow-moving actions on their agenda through the regulatory process. These policies also violated the intent of the Clean Air Act of 1970, the goal of which is the regulation of hazardous air pollutant emissions.

Zoning back into the context of sports venues, a number of new arenas have opened over the last four years—the SoFi Stadium in L.A. and the Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, to name a few. Notably, Irwin Kishner, attorney at Herrick, Feinstein LLP, told Construction Dive that environmentally-minded pushback against sports arena construction is not uncommon. For example, when the Chase Center (the new home of the Golden State Warriors) was still in the planning phase in 2016, the project was met with lawsuits from neighboring businesses accusing the developers of violating the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The case lasted over a year until the Warriors ultimately broke land.

Sometimes, the push back has less of a grassroots nature and comes from other major organizations. For example, last year, Madison Square Garden Group (MSG) filed a lawsuit against Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state’s Joint Legislative Budget Committee over the California Assembly Bill No. 987. The bill fast-tracks requirements for the construction of certain sports and entertainment venues. MSG’s side argued that the new arena would cause “substantial harm” through traffic and pollution and “lightens the burden” on the project developers to meet CEQA requirements. It’s important to note that the Los Angeles Clippers’ new Inglewood arena would have also been in direct competition with MSG-owned venue, the Forum. The dispute was settled when Clippers owner, Steve Ballmer, purchased the Forum from MSG for $400-million. Although it is difficult to assess whether the construction of any of the projects mentioned above has significantly benefited from Trump-era environmental rollbacks, the sports arena construction domain will be a worthwhile one to observe as the new administration rolls out environmental policies.

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed an executive order on “protecting public health and the environment and restoring science to tackle the climate crisis.” Section 1 of the document lays out Biden’s overarching environmental policy. The policy includes, but is not limited to, ensuring access to clean air and water; limiting exposure to dangerous chemicals and pesticides; holding polluters accountable, including those who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Heads of all agencies must review all existing regulations and policies made between January 2017 and today to ensure compliance with Section 1. Additionally, Section 7 of the executive order revokes Trump’s two orders in 2017 that expedited procedures and deadlines for completion of environmental reviews for certain infrastructure projects.

These new regulations may not present much of a hurdle for some organizations, given the momentum that sports arenas have gained in environmentally-minded efforts. For example, 2020 was also the year during which Amazon joined forces with NHL expansion team Seattle Kraken and the OakView Group to rename Seattle’s Key Arena to “Climate Pledge Arena” and renovate it to be a leader in sustainability. The venture’s goal is to create the “most progressive, responsible, and sustainable arena in the world.” A move that Bloomberg Law highlighted as the “highest-profile pro sports venue naming rights deal to be centered so prominently around sustainability.” The Seattle Kraken’s new home is set to open in the Fall of 2021 and will have the “greenest ice” in the NHL while being a carbon-neutral facility and eliminating single-use plastic completely by 2024.

Not all sports organizations can partner with multinational tech companies such as Amazon; therefore, resources for plans unaffected by shifting legislation may vary. President of the Green Sports Alliance, Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, notes, “I know from first-hand experience that many environmental initiatives at ballparks and arenas are on hold due to COVID. Teams need revenue from fans in the seats to respond to environmental challenges.” Besides environmental-concerns pertaining to the infrastructure of sports venues, there will certainly be more changes to look out for as more policies roll out.

Klaw-pyright Infringement

Despite his wild success over the last year, Kawhi Leonard took a tough “L” recently when he ran into a pick set by Nike last month. Oregon District Court Judge Michael W. Mosman granted Nike’s motion to dismiss the NBA star’s claim that he rightfully owned the “The Klaw” logo. In fact, in the complaint, Leonard’s legal team referred to the popularly-known logo as the “Leonard Logo” instead, in an attempt to establish even more of a link between the design and player. Yet, despite the undeniable connection the “KL” outstretched hand has with Leonard’s likeness, the judge’s ruling indicates that the logo and all adjoining rights to its use indeed belong to Nike.

Size Matters

The concept of “The Klaw” was allegedly birthed when Leonard was still a second or third year player on the San Antonio Spurs. Coming out of college, Leonard boasted hands measuring 9.8 inches long and 11.3 inches wide. While those figures alone may not mean much, it should be noted that Leonard not only had the longest hands in the 2011 NBA draft, but slides in at no. 9 all-time in biggest “NBA hands” (sandwiched between Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain ⁠— if you’ve ever heard of them). Thus, from his remarkably large hands, “The Klaw” stuck to Leonard as a nickname and a potentially lucrative branding opportunity.

Interestingly, the nickname’s origin story has been called “a myth amongst the Spurs [2014] roster” as to who first conceived it or when the trend even caught fire. Leonard insists that he invented the logo while still at San Diego State University, though it could not have been created in connection to “The Klaw” moniker. In any event, Leonard’s credit for the initial sketch has not been disputed, but his protection over the foundational design was, for which he is now paying the price.

“Board Man Gets Played”

What makes this case so important is that this issue of intellectual property protection is only becoming more crucial for young athletes, as collegiate stars will be able to brand and profit off their likeness through endorsement agreements starting as soon as next year.

To Leonard’s credit, he had the foresight to begin building his brand in college, and conceptualized the following illustration. However, as a rookie with the San Antonio Spurs, the two-time champion recalls sharing a preliminary sketch of his logo idea with Nike, with whom he signed an endorsement deal. Below is a picture of Leonard’s version against Nike’s official design.

It is here where a few disagreements arise. The first is a matter of uniqueness and though the designs are generally similar in concept, the judge stated that he found Nike’s rendition of the logo to be “new and significantly different from [Leonard’s] design.”

Second, Leonard himself did not deny that the logo was created in connection with the endorsement contract, however argued that Nike’s design was a derivative of his work, disqualifying it from copyright protection. Again, the judge supported Nike’s claim that its version was “obviously distinct.”

However, what may be most telling is Leonard’s admission in a 2014 interview in which he speaks on the logo and his excitement in partnering with Nike. He states, “I came up with the idea of incorporating my initials in this logo. I drew up the rough draft, sent it over and they [Jordan Brand] made it perfect. I give the Jordan Brand team all the credit because I’m no artist at all. They refined it and made it look better than I thought it would ever be, and I’m extremely happy with the final version.”

Love & Basketball…and Intellectual Property

Much like the ugly breakup with the San Antonio Spurs and eventual marriage with the Los Angeles Clippers, the NBA star’s relationship with Nike unfolded similarly, with New Balance serving as Leonard’s “rebound,” if you will. Though given an opportunity to resign with Nike, once the contract between the sports apparel giant and the literal giant in Leonard expired in 2018, Leonard opted to take his talents to New Balance, signing an endorsement deal.

Though Nike, as mentioned, retains all rights to “The Klaw” logo, it is theoretically possible that New Balance could buy or license its utility in the future. Given the unlikelihood that Nike would agree to this (barring an absurdly Nike-friendly deal), there are few other options—if any—available to Leonard and New Balance to use the design other than appealing the judgment and receiving a remand.

Of course, because neither New Balance nor Leonard are able to utilize the logo, the pair has had to pivot in their endorsement efforts. While New Balance’s site is still bare bones as far as Kawhi-specific apparel, the Boston-based company unveiled a design earlier this year for Leonard’s first signature shoe. If you check out the logo on the shoe’s tongue, you’ll notice that it’s remarkably different, and more…ordinary than the disputed design owned by Nike, which honestly may align better with Leonard’s well-known, even-keeled personality.

However, if Leonard truly seeks to reclaim his logo through an appeal for his branding, the shot clock is ticking. The shoe will not officially be made available for purchase until the fall, but the odds that the case against Nike is appealed, remanded, and reversed—all before the shoe is released? Well, let’s just say Leonard would have a better chance of hitting “The Shot” again.

Tag: Los Angeles Clippers

Biden’s Impact on the Industry: Sports Venues and the Environment

Kawhi Leonard Loses “The Klaw” Logo Lawsuit v. Nike