It has happened so often that it’s practically part of the ecclesiastical calendar.
Each January, the pastors of churches (and at times the leaders of some non-church organizations) receive menacing letters from the lawyers representing the National Football League.
“You can not have a ‘Super Bowl’ Party,” says the letter. “The Super Bowl is OURS! OURS! OURS! Cease and desist, less we sue the frock off you!”
Of course, the lawyers have their secretaries use more legal terminology than I just did, but you get the idea.
Not this year, however.
Congress has solved the problem.
No, I am not making this up.
Despite its inability to pass a budget, adopt a policy of energy independence, or do anything to make government smarter, Congress does have the power to ensure the football-viewing freedom of its 21st Century citizens.
Congress had begun considering a new law that would prohibit the NFL from church-suing over “Super Bowl” parties. Not wanting Congress involved in its affairs, the NFL cried “Uncle Sam” and gave up. Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote a letter to Sen. Orin Hatch, announcing that the NFL would stop suing churches for infringing on its copyright of the phrase “Super Bowl,” as long as the churches use facilities they normally use for their services and events, and do not charge admission. Churches are also urged to call their events “Big Game” parties instead of “Super Bowl” parties.
In recent years, many churches have held such events, which often include a special, faith-based halftime presentation that is unrelated to whatever nonsense the NFL pays to put on midfield between the second and third quarters of its championship game.
The NFL, which owns the copyright and trademarks of the phrases “Super Bowl” and “Super Sunday,” has spent lots of money threatening churches with lawsuits and otherwise making sure nobody steals its Super thunder.
Newspapers and others who sell advertising are reminded each year that they can NOT use the phrase “Super Bowl” in any ads. You will notice that the ads and commercials you see include phrases like “big game” instead of “Super Bowl.”
(I can say “Super Bowl” in this story because copyright law allows news organizations to use copyrighted names for events that are best described by those trademarked names. The legal term for this is nominative fair use.)
Super trademark theft
Like many modern lawsuits, the NFL's legal action to protect their "Super Bowl" copyrights are just silly. That's because the NFL stole the name for its big game from another company.
In 1964, the Wham-O company produced a new toy that took the country by storm. It created a small, pressurized rubber ball that bounced like crazy. Wham-O called it the "Super Ball."
The leaders of the NFL and the American Football League were discussing what to call their first-ever championship game. They had already planned on using the word "Bowl" because that was (and still is) the term for the college football games at the end of the year.
Lamar Hunt, an AFL founder and the owner of the Kansas City Chiefs, told the NFL that he had begun calling the first AFL/NFL championship game the "Super Bowl" because he had seen his kids playing with the Super Ball.
Hunt, however, did not like that name. He thought it was corny. He was sure that someone would come up with something better, something more unique.
He was wrong. Super Bowl XLVI (46, for those of you who are rusty in Roman numerals) takes place this Sunday.
The NFL wants to make sure that while you enjoy the game, you do not infringe, purloin, or otherwise impugn the dignity of its sacred Super Bowl Trademark.
After all, the NFL stole "Super Bowl" fair and square.
I just wonder what would happen if somebody tries to use the "Super Ball" trademark on "Super Sunday."
