‘GETCHA POPCORN READY’ Lawsuit: The Trademark Showdown Between Terrell Owens and TMZ

Owens alleges that TMZ featured the trademark in “numerous articles and headlines referencing National Football League (“NFL”) games, players, or football related commentary” aiming “to evoke excitement, anticipation, or drama associated with NFL related coverage based on the value Owens provided the trademark.” According to Owens, this usage was done without his authorization and was intended to exploit the recognition and value of the trademark. Owens alleges that the trademark is an important part of his brand, which he has leveraged throughout his career in the NFL, particularly in relation to entertainment services and clothing products.

The complaint outlines several causes of action against TMZ based on its alleged use of the trademark for commercial purposes. First, Owens claims that TMZ’s alleged use of the trademark in football-related content without his consent violates his right of publicity under Illinois law. Owens emphasizes that the “phrase ‘Getcha Popcorn Ready’ is a core component of his commercial identity and brand.” Second, Owens claims that TMZ’s actions constitute trademark infringement under Illinois state law and common law, contending that such use is likely to cause confusion as to the source or origin of TMZ’s services and/or is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception regarding an affiliation, connection, or association between Owens and TMZ. Third, Owens asserts that TMZ’s alleged unauthorized use of the trademark qualifies as trademark dilution under Illinois law, arguing that the trademark has become nationally recognized and famous. Finally, Owens alleges that TMZ has been unjustly enriched through its alleged use of the trademark, claiming that by using “GETCHA POPCORN READY” without compensating Owens, TMZ derived a financial benefit from increased readership and advertising revenue. As part of his remedies in the lawsuit, Owens is seeking monetary damages, an injunction to prevent further use of the trademark, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

Interestingly, Owens brings this case in state court and does not appear to assert a federal cause of action for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, despite owning a federal registration for the trademark. It is worth noting that such federal registration (No. 3920071) only covers Class 25 goods (clothing, namely, shirts, t-shirts, pants, shorts, dresses, and skirts) and does not cover any entertainment-related services. Additionally, while Owens is a resident of California, he brings this case in Illinois, asserting that both jurisdiction and venue are proper as TMZ “does business throughout the country.”

It remains to be seen how TMZ will substantively respond to the lawsuit and whether it will challenge Owens’ claims on jurisdictional, venue, First Amendment, and/or fair use grounds. As for big picture considerations, this case is a reminder that popular catchphrases developed by individuals may be subject to trademark and/or publicity rights protection, and that it is important to evaluate the legal status of such catchphrases and potential defenses to each particular use case before using popular catchphrases without express authorization.