First Amendment Shields Alabama Sports Artist in Eight-Year Trademark Fight

Daniel Moore has painted Alabama football since 1979. A 1976 alumnus, he built a career creating hand-painted oil compositions of historic Crimson Tide moments, selling originals, limited-edition prints, and calendars through his company New Life Art. Collectors prized the works, and the university itself once displayed them on campus without objection.

The relationship soured in 2002 when Alabama demanded that Moore obtain a license before depicting the team's crimson and white uniforms in any format. When Moore refused, the university sued New Life Art for trademark infringement, arguing that the colors and uniform designs were protectable marks and that Moore's sales created consumer confusion about official endorsement. The case landed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama and stretched across nearly a decade.

Moore retained Stephen D. Heninger of Heninger Garrison Davis. The defense rested on a straightforward but legally unsettled proposition: an artist painting a historically accurate depiction of a real sporting event is engaged in First Amendment expression, not commercial trademark use. Heninger pointed to the Eleventh Circuit's application of the Rogers v. Grimaldi balancing test, which weighs artistic relevance against the risk of consumer confusion. Alabama had encouraged and displayed Moore's work for years without demanding licenses, conduct that itself raised questions about any licensing obligation.

In June 2012 the Eleventh Circuit ruled for Moore on the core claim. The court held that the First Amendment interest in artistic expression 'so clearly outweighs whatever consumer confusion' existed that no trademark violation could be found for the paintings, prints, and calendars. The university's prior acquiescence also undermined its contract arguments. The Eleventh Circuit remanded a narrow question about mundane merchandise such as mugs for further proceedings on the licensing agreement's scope.

On September 30, 2013, U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon entered final judgment dismissing the trademark suit in Moore's favor and rejecting the university's claim for unjust enrichment damages. Heninger called it 'a landmark case.' Moore, who had painted 'Goal Line Stand' more than three decades earlier, said he hoped to eventually reconcile with the school he graduated from.