Jack Nicklaus NIL Win Tees Up Framework for Future IP Fights (1)

Legendary golfer Jack Nicklaus won a very different type of major victory this year—one that could reshape how name, image, and likeness rights are treated across trademark, intellectual property, and employment agreements in the sports and entertainment industries.

When a New York judge ruled that Nicklaus retains control over his NIL, it did more than resolve a high-profile dispute. It signaled a broader legal reckoning for legacy contracts and NIL ownership, especially in industries where personal branding and commercial trademarks intersect.

The case, Nicklaus Cos. LLC v. GBI Investors Inc., has quickly become a benchmark for how courts may view ambiguous NIL transfers, particularly when those rights are entangled with business, employment, or co-founder relationships. The warning is clear: In this new NIL economy, ambiguity equals liability, and NIL should be treated as a standalone category in contracts, with its own terms, expiration clauses, revocation rights, and compensation structures.

New Rules

Contracts executed prior to the NIL era, especially those predating the NCAA’s 2021 policy, often fail to spell out exactly which rights are being transferred. Many rely on vague phrases such as “promotional rights” or treat all NIL as part of a broader IP assignment.

Because of this, courts are showing little patience for outdated language, particularly when multimillion-dollar NIL revenue is at stake. Legacy agreements are now more likely to be interpreted narrowly, preserving rights for public figures who remain commercially active.

Trademarks and Identities

The distinction between owning a trademark and owning NIL rights was at the heart of the Nicklaus case. While Nicklaus Cos. owns trademarks associated with the Nicklaus brand, the court found no evidence that Nicklaus ever transferred his NIL to the company, “even to the exclusion of his own use of those rights,” the court said.

This is a warning for companies acquiring celebrity- or founder-led brands to treat NIL as a separate asset class. Trademark ownership doesn’t automatically grant the right to use someone’s image, likeness, or personal story for endorsements or marketing.

Legal Risks

Modern NIL use, from influencer content to metaverse avatars, goes far beyond the scope of many legacy agreements. Businesses relying on outdated contracts to continue using a person’s NIL may face serious exposure and liability. Some inherent risks include:

• Implied endorsements: Using NIL without updated consent can trigger right-of-publicity claims.
• Digital omissions: Pre-social media contracts may lack language covering influencer marketing, avatars, or AI-generated content, such as voice or video use.
• Territorial gaps: Global platforms demand express international rights, something older contracts rarely address.

To avoid legal exposure, companies should conduct a proactive NIL audit, review legacy deals, and consider renegotiating where NIL use is vague or unaddressed.

NIL and IP

The Nicklaus ruling is part of a growing trend in which courts are treating NIL as distinct from traditional IP—even when the two appear to intersect. The idea that someone can own the trademarks to a name, but not the personal identity attached to it, is now central to many legal disputes in branding, licensing, and talent contracts.

This doesn’t only affect athletes. Talent agreements for founders, public figures, media personalities, and creatives must now consider post-employment NIL use.

Companies should be asking if they can continue using their founder’s name in marketing after their departure and whether a designer’s personal brand lives on in the company’s branding without their involvement. Once hypothetical questions, these are now critical contract considerations in the NIL era.

Nicklaus’ $1 million NIL win is more than a personal triumph—it’s a clear signal that courts are taking NIL control seriously, even when legacy IP agreements suggest otherwise. The ruling may set a precedent that could affect licensing agreements and personal branding across the sports and entertainment sectors.

It also reinforces what many attorneys already know: NIL is no longer a niche issue. It’s central to how talent, brands, and companies negotiate control, rights, and reputation. As more public figures challenge legacy agreements, businesses must adapt or risk high-profile losses.

The message to companies and legal teams is clear. Audit now, clarify ownership, and adapt before the next headline becomes your own.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Quintin Saffold is an employment, sports, and entertainment attorney at Omnus Law, specializing in IP, licensing, and employment law.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines