Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Inside Naming Rights Deals
Barclays Center, Levi's Stadium, Golden 1 Center, Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Hard Rock Stadium — any sports fan or concert-goer can rattle off these names as venues of spectacular games and top-notch musical performances. What is behind those names? Naming rights transactions, which are increasingly popular thanks to their unique intersection of advertising, promotional opportunities, and headline-grabbing financial terms.
Each naming rights agreement can be thought of as a sponsorship transaction, with the added element of naming. Depending on the magnitude of the transaction, a naming rights agreement will include a wide variety of marketing elements, including sponsorships, ads, television spots, integrated technology and other promotions. All of these elements have brought naming rights transactions back into vogue for sports leagues and franchises after the market cooled down following the economic recession in 2008.
Naming rights agreements are usually the result of complex negotiation, and the number of issues discussed are plentiful. One of the most heavily discussed terms in a naming rights agreement is exclusivity. The partner (i.e., the party who is advertising) wants to expand its exclusivity rights as much as possible. Any dilution, confusion or presence of competitors reduces the value of their investment. However, the rights holder (i.e., the recipient of the advertising) wants to narrow the partner's exclusivity rights so as not to curtail other significant sponsorship opportunities and reduce their overall income. Additionally, both parties desire flexibility within the concept of exclusivity: the partner wants the ability to expand the scope of its exclusivity should its business change or expand and the rights holder wants to include exceptions that will allow it to take advantage of unique opportunities such as the Olympics, All-Star Games, sponsored teams, etc.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.