⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Second Circuit considers a dispute over thirty-three homemade T-shirts bearing NFL and team logos. Todd Bank says he made the shirts and prepared a website to sell them, but wants a court ruling before making unlicensed sales. NFL Properties warned that unauthorized use of its marks could lead to legal action. He seeks a declaratory judgment: a binding statement of the parties' legal rights, rather than damages for past conduct. The trial court found a sufficiently concrete controversy, yet declined to hear the case. It viewed the suit as manufactured litigation and thought a later infringement action would be a better setting. That was a decision not to reach the trademark merits, not a ruling that the shirts were lawful. The Declaratory Judgment Act gives courts discretion even when constitutional jurisdiction exists. The Admiral Insurance factors mentioned in the argument help assess the usefulness of a declaration, litigation tactics, alternative remedies and efficient use of courts; no single factor automatically controls. Bank will argue he should not have to risk infringement liability to test his rights, and that the judge misapplied those factors. NFL Properties will defend the refusal and question whether the dispute is concrete enough at all. The appeal asks whether refusing to hear this case was an abuse of discretion, not just whether another judge might have chosen differently.

Bank v. NFL Properties LLC (No. 25-2940) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.