In case you missed it, the 2024 NBA All-Star weekend occurred this weekend, but not without controversy. The controversy was not on the court but surrounded intellectual property (IP) protection. The controversy involved the NBA disinviting Chris Brown to play in its celebrity All-Star game because of NBA’s sponsors like Ruffles, according to Chris Brown’s Instagram post.
Following public backlash against the Ruffles brand initiated by Chris Brown’s Instagram post, Ruffles released a statement “Ruffles sponsored last night’s NBA All-Star Celebrity Game; however, Ruffles did not have any involvement in, nor visibility to, any player decisions or celebrity invite discussions.”
So, what does IP protection have to do with this controversy? Everything! Typically, when a large company sponsors a major televised event, like the NBA All-Star game, the company spends a large amount of money to advertise its brands through television commercials while concurrently displaying its brands throughout the entire event.
Since a large amount of money is spent on brand exposure, the company wants to avoid anything that could negatively impact or be associated with its brands. To avoid or reduce the risk of negative publicity, the company vets the talent (i.e., individuals participating in the sponsored event) by running a background check on the talent to ascertain whether the talent may cause trouble for the company’s brands. If the company finds something in a talent’s background check (e.g., a controversial social media post) that might negatively affect its brands, the company is likely to pass on selecting the talent for the sponsored event. By going through this vetting process, the company protects its intellectual property and reputation, ultimately protecting its bottom-line profits. Alternatively, the company may outsource to a third-party agency the vetting process, the talent selection, or a combination of both.
As to Chris Brown, I speculate that the NBA uninvited Chris Brown to participate in the celebrity game based on a request from the NBA’s sponsor, PepsiCo, Inc. (“PepsiCo”), or one of its subsidiaries, such as a Frito-Lay North America, Inc., which owns the Ruffles trademarks. This request to remove Chris Brown as a talent was based on his background check and was probably made by the legal department, the Sports Marketing department, a third-party agency, or any combination thereof. However, as put out by Ruffles statement, I believe that the Ruffles brand team did not have any involvement in, nor visibility to, any player decisions or celebrity invite discussions, because I suspect the decision was made independently of and without the brand team’s knowledge.
Thus, the decision to disinvite Chris Brown was based on protecting sponsors’ brands (i.e., sponsors’ IP). As the controversy continues and facts become publicly known, we will learn whether Chris Brown was unfairly treated. With hindsight, it would have been better to include Chris Brown in the celebrity All-Star game since this is the exact negative publicity the sponsors attempted to avoid. Also, all talents should have been completely vetted before the NBA extended invitations.
Author
Xavier Hailey, Esq. is a trademark attorney and patent attorney helping individuals, entrepreneurs, and business owners protect their intellectual property (e.g., patents, trademarks, and copyrights). To protect your intellectual property today or to learn more about intellectual property, visit www.haileylawfirm.com.
