The NCAA wanted to reclaim some classic event names from DraftKings before the start of "March Madness," but the judge did not agree. This trademark infringement lawsuit recently went through a "blitz" in the Southern District of Indiana Federal Court, where the NCAA's request for a temporary restraining order was denied, allowing DraftKings to continue using terms like "March Madness," "Final Four," "Elite Eight," and "Sweet Sixteen" for promotion this season. The PASA official website noted that although the lawsuit has not affected the betting season temporarily, the tug-of-war over trademark boundaries has just begun.
The reason for the NCAA's lawsuit is straightforward: DraftKings' use of these trademarks in sports betting promotions could lead consumers to believe there is an official partnership between the two. However, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt believed that the NCAA had not proven that immediate cessation was necessary to prevent "irreparable harm." In other words, the evidence of urgency was not compelling enough. She also added in her ruling that as the case progresses, the NCAA might still have the possibility to apply for a preliminary or permanent injunction if it can present more substantial evidence.
Using terms for five years, and now suddenly stopping? The court thinks it's "too late"
The judge's key reason for dismissal was—time. DraftKings has been using terms like "March Madness" for betting promotions for over five years. During this time, the NCAA did not take legal action, and now suddenly asking the court for an urgent halt, the court inevitably questioned: Why only now?
This "long-term inaction" directly weakened the NCAA's argument of urgency. In trademark infringement cases, if the rights holder has allowed others to use the trademark for a long time, the court usually questions the need for a temporary injunction. This ruling also indicates that the judge does not believe the situation has reached a level where immediate action is necessary. However, this does not mean DraftKings has won, just that "there is no need to stop now."
The NCAA claims it "wants to avoid gambling," while DraftKings invokes the "fair use" principle
The core dispute between the two parties is actually a completely different understanding of the "boundaries of trademark use." The NCAA's stance is clear: it has always kept a distance from gambling, and DraftKings' use of these terms for gambling promotions is "riding on the popularity," which could easily mislead users into thinking there is cooperation between the NCAA and the gambling platform.
DraftKings, on the other hand, brought out the "fair use" principle, emphasizing that their use of these terms is to describe the events themselves, which is protected under the First Amendment. In plain language: "These terms have already become common names in the public context, why can't I use them?"
Although the judge did not directly conclude, she acknowledged that "whether consumers will be confused" is indeed an unavoidable issue in subsequent proceedings. The NCAA also sees this judgment as a signal that "there is still a chance to turn the situation around"—if it can later present consumer surveys or evidence of confusion, it might be able to change the outcome.
The case is not over yet, but DraftKings can at least finish this season
Currently, this lawsuit has only completed the "temporary restraining order" step. Next, the case will enter the evidence disclosure phase, where both parties must lay their cards on the table. If the NCAA can later prove that confusion does exist or that DraftKings' use exceeds reasonable boundaries, the judge might still issue a preliminary or permanent injunction. If mediation fails, they might ultimately have to face each other in court.
But at least for the 2026 college basketball season, DraftKings can breathe a sigh of relief for now. The PASA official website has noticed that such trademark disputes are not uncommon in the sports betting field—event IP holders and betting platforms both want to "keep their distance" yet cannot avoid the reality of "making money together." This time, the judge chose "not to act hastily," but the final decision will depend on the evidence battle between the two parties in the future.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leader," a gambling industry news channel:https://t.me/pasa_news
Original deep channel for gambling:https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data reports: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: https://www.pasa.news
