With the Kansas City Chiefs on the verge of making history by potentially winning their third consecutive Super Bowl, the term “three-peat” has been buzzing around the sports world.
However, using this term on official Super Bowl merchandise might come with hefty royalties due to the trademark ownership of former NBA coach and current Miami Heat president, Pat Riley.
In the late 1980s, Pat Riley, then coaching the Los Angeles Lakers, trademarked the term “three-peat” and its variations. While the Lakers fell short of achieving the feat in 1989, Riley’s foresight paved the way for future financial gains. His company, Riles & Co., owns multiple trademarks related to the term, covering products from hats and shirts to posters and even energy drinks.
Riley’s trademark has already made him significant profits over the years. Each time a sports team in North America achieves a “three-peat,” companies using the term commercially must pay Riley licensing royalties. For instance, the Chicago Bulls’ two three-peats in the 1990s generated considerable revenue for Riley, with his company earning approximately $300,000 in 1993 and nearly $600,000 in 1998.
If the Chiefs win their third consecutive Super Bowl, they would likely want to celebrate and capitalize on this historic achievement with specially-branded merchandise. However, using the term “three-peat” on such merchandise would require them to pay Riley for the rights to do so. Merchandise like jerseys, hats, and commemorative memorabilia featuring the term could generate millions in licensing fees.
While fans are eager to celebrate with “three-peat” merchandise, the Chiefs organization and their partners would need to navigate the legal landscape carefully. Any unauthorized use of the term could result in legal action or hefty fines. On the flip side, collaborating with Riley’s company could ensure that fans get their desired merchandise without any legal hiccups.
It’s worth noting that Riley has donated a significant portion of his earnings from the “three-peat” trademark to charity over the years. This fact adds a positive spin to the otherwise commercially-driven nature of trademark enforcement.