The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Todd C. Bank against NFL Properties LLC. Bank sought a declaration that selling t-shirts with unlicensed NFL logos would not violate trademark laws. The ruling, issued on November 12, 2026, affects Bank, who represented himself in the case, and NFL Properties, the licensing arm of the NFL.

This case matters because it addresses the legal boundaries of trademark use, particularly concerning the functionality doctrine, which can exempt certain designs from trademark protection. The court's decision clarifies how courts may exercise discretion in declaratory judgment actions, especially when the stakes are low.

Background

Todd C. Bank, a pro se attorney from Kew Gardens, New York, initiated the lawsuit against NFL Properties LLC, which manages merchandising and licensing for the NFL. Bank's dispute arose after he expressed intentions to sell t-shirts featuring the logos of all thirty-two NFL teams without obtaining the necessary licenses. He argued that these logos were not protectable trademarks under the functionality doctrine, which states that functional aspects of a product cannot serve as trademarks.

In November 2024, Bank sent a letter to NFL Properties claiming to represent an unnamed individual who planned to sell NFL merchandise without a license. NFL Properties responded by rejecting Bank's argument and warning of potential legal action for trademark infringement. Following this, Bank filed his first lawsuit, which was dismissed after he conceded he lacked standing. He subsequently filed a second lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment on the legality of his planned sales.

The Ruling

The Second Circuit Court ruled to affirm the district court's dismissal of Bank's case. The district court had exercised its discretion under the Declaratory Judgment Act to decline jurisdiction over the case, stating it was not a suitable matter for judicial resolution. The court noted, "the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise jurisdiction here," indicating that the dispute was not substantial enough to warrant court intervention.

The appellate court also highlighted that while Bank had established standing to sue, the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case was reasonable. The ruling emphasized that the stakes involved were minimal, as Bank was only attempting to sell thirty-three t-shirts. The court stated, "the district court reasonably concluded that Bank might abandon the plan to sell the shirts—or, if he did engage in sales, then NFLP might not sue him." This suggests that the potential for future litigation was uncertain and not immediate.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for trademark law and the use of the Declaratory Judgment Act. It reinforces the idea that courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to hear cases that may not present a substantial controversy. The ruling indicates that low-stakes disputes, particularly those involving minimal financial investment, may not justify the allocation of judicial resources.

For individuals or entities considering similar actions against established trademarks, this case serves as a cautionary tale. It illustrates that even if a party believes they have a valid legal argument, courts may decline to hear cases that lack a real and substantial controversy. The decision could deter others from pursuing similar claims without a more significant investment or clearer legal standing.

What's Next

Bank's case has been dismissed, but he may still have options for appeal or other legal actions in the future. The ruling does not prevent him from attempting to sell the t-shirts again, but he would need to address the legal risks associated with trademark infringement. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential related cases or further actions Bank may take.