Chicago, IL – A federal judge has ruled against moving a lawsuit by the Chicago Cubs against a neighboring rooftop business, Wrigley View Rooftop, to arbitration. The judge maintained her earlier decision, leaving the Cubs free to continue their legal battle in court.
The dispute originated last year when the Cubs filed a lawsuit against Wrigley View Rooftop and its owner, Aidan Dunican. The Cubs allege that the rooftop business, which offers views of games and events at Wrigley Field from an adjacent building for up to 200 guests, has been engaging in unlawful activities. These include the misappropriation and unauthorized use of the Cubs’ trademarks, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition.
Wrigley View Rooftop has denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the matter should be settled through arbitration. However, U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman noted that the arbitration clause the rooftop company relied on expired in 2023.
This arbitration clause was part of a broader settlement back in 2004, a resolution from prior litigation that included revenue sharing between the rooftop businesses and the Cubs. This agreement expired this year, yet all businesses involved except for Wrigley View Rooftop consented to extend their agreements.
After the expiry of this agreement, Wrigley View Rooftop continued to sell tickets for Cubs games and use team trademarks. The company proudly markets itself as “the last Wrigley rooftop to be independently owned and operated!” heading into the 2025 MLB season.
The crux of the issue, according to Wrigley View Rooftop, revolves around the use of the Cubs’ trademarks without permission and whether the team has a right to demand royalties. They argue this issue originated under the now-expired settlement agreement, which included a clause for royalties in exchange for trademark usage. In contrast, the Cubs contend that the settlement agreement clearly concluded all arbitration clauses upon expiration.
Judge Coleman sided with the Cubs, ruling that the arguments presented by Wrigley View Rooftop were baseless. According to her, with the settlement’s expiration, the Cubs were no longer entitled to royalties, nor was Wrigley View Rooftop allowed to use the Cubs’ trademarks without formal agreement.
The upcoming pretrial discovery process, set to be completed by June 12, will further uncover relevant facts. Should this case proceed to a jury trial, it might finally settle the extensive debate in property law regarding whether businesses can legally sell tickets to view live performances in famous adjacent venues like the century-old Wrigley Field.
Such legal battles not only reflect the complexities of modern intellectual property rights and contractual agreements but also represent the evolving dynamics between traditional sports franchises and surrounding businesses capitalizing on their proximity to the action.
Please note that this article was automatically generated by OpenAI. As the described events, individuals, or details might be inaccurate, any requests for corrections, retractions, or removal can be directed to [email protected].