elizabeth-dunne-jwY_gr1kAng-unsplash

Keen sports observers sometimes use trademark applications to try to identify the names and locations of potential expansion teams that may be coming to sports leagues. Recent trademark applications by the WNBA and National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) highlight just how complicated expansion team-related applications can be, however.

Let’s start with the WNBA. Earlier this year, the WNBA filed applications to register CHARLOTTE STING (Serial Nos. 99,027,594 and 99,027,574); CLEVELAND ROCKERS (Serial No. 99,027,630); DETROIT SHOCK (Serial No. 99,024,363); HOUSTON COMETS (Serial No. 99,027,505); and MIAMI SOL (Serial Nos. 99,027,625 and 99,027,613).  Notably, these are all names of teams that were previously WNBA franchises, but went defunct in the 2000s. When the teams folded, the WNBA’s trademark registrations relating to those teams were canceled or abandoned. Although the WNBA could potentially be seeking new registrations only for the purpose of protecting “throwback” or “retro” merchandise, press reports indicate that some or all of these cities have submitted bids to the WNBA for a new expansion franchise. 

There is a complicating wrinkle for the WNBA, however.  An independent basketball league, the Women’s Basketball League, has announced plans to launch a six-league team in 2025, including teams called the Cleveland Rockers and the Detroit Shock. The Women’s Basketball League filed an application for CLEVELAND ROCKERS (Serial No. 98,201,494) in 2023, and filed applications for DETROIT SHOCK (Serial Nos. 98,096,968 and 98,593,400) in 2023 and 2024. The USPTO granted the 2023 DETROIT SHOCK application, so the mark was registered as of February 4, 2025. It remains to be seen how these dueling marks will impact the WNBA’s trademark applications or its possible expansion strategy.

Continue Reading Reading the Tea Leaves: How Trademark Applications Show WNBA and NWSL Expansion Plans and Complications
zhao-yangjun-vtRZHKr3VsQ-unsplash

Originally posted on Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

I don’t wanna grow up, I’m a TOYS R US kid. So, many of us grew up with this commercial jingle and it along with the brand brings back positive memories of celebrating birthdays and holidays. But what happens when a company operating in a not so kid-friendly field starts using a trademark similar to that of the TOYS R US mark? 

In a case that blends nostalgia with modern controversy, Tru Kids Inc., the owner of the TOYS R US mark, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against a vape and cannabis retailer operating under the name VAPE R US. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under both federal and state law. Tru Kids Inc. v. Vape R Us, Inc. et al, 3:25-cv-00781-VAB (D.Conn.). 

At the heart of the dispute is the retailer’s use of branding that closely mirrors the iconic TOYS R US trademark and others associated with the brand. According to the complaint, the vape shop’s signage features multicolored bubble letters, a reversed “R” with a star, and even a depiction of Geoffrey the Giraffe. The long-standing mascot of the toy brand appears with a not so familiar “toy”—a vaping device.

Continue Reading I Don’t Wanna Grow Up, I’m a What Kind of Kid? Toys R Us Takes on Vape R Us in Trademark Battle
Picture1
Kendrick Lamar and SZA performing “luther,” photo by the author.

On May 9, 2025, I sat in a crowded football stadium for the sold-out second night of the Grand National Tour concert featuring Kendrick Lamar and SZA (the stage name of Solána Rowe). As I listened to those iconic artists perform their hit song “luther,” my mind turned, as it often does, to trademarks. I wondered if Mr. Lamar and SZA had registered any trademarks associated with the tour or the hit songs they were performing. After all, trademarks can be incredibly important for musicians and other entertainers, not only for logos, but also to protect a broad range of goods and services, including entertainment services, merchandise, digital downloadable music, and even physical media like CDs (surprisingly, over 22 million CDs were sold in 2024!). A well-managed trademark portfolio can help ensure that fans get authentic products, while giving artists greater control over how their name and brand are used commercially.

As it turns out, Mr. Lamar’s and Ms. Rowe’s trademark footprints seem to be relatively light. There are two registered KENDRICK LAMAR marks (Reg. Nos. 4,595,808 and 5,076,690). Those trademarks were originally owned by Top Dawg Entertainment, Mr. Lamar’s first record label, but were later transferred to Nomo Hashimoto LLC. (Mr. Lamar has also applied to register KENDRICK LAMAR in his individual capacity under his legal name, Kendrick Lamar Duckworth, Serial No. 97,381,793). Other than the two KENDRICK LAMAR marks, Nomo Hashimoto holds only one other registered trademark: OKLAMA, in connection with Mr. Lamar’s 2022 tour (Mr. Lamar as applied to register that same mark under his real name as well, Serial No. 90,892,203). Although it is possible Mr. Lamar has registered trademarks through other entities, there do not appear to be registrations relating to, among other things, the phrase “Grand National Tour” or Mr. Lamar’s hit song “Not Like Us.” This seeming lack of registered trademarks is particularly surprising because in his hit song “squabble up,” Mr. Lamar says “IP, ownership, the blueprint is by me,” a pointed reminder that for some artists, asserting authorship and control is as important offstage as it is in their lyrics.

There are also a dearth of registered trademarks relating to Ms. Rowe. There is, however, a registered trademark for her stage name, SZA (Reg. No. 5,008,021). Like the KENDRICK LAMAR marks, it was originally owned by Top Dawg Entertainment, but was later assigned to a New Jersey LLC, CTRLCORP. Notably, Ms. Rowe hails from Maplewood, New Jersey and her first full album was titled Ctrl. CTRLCORP has applied to register NOT BEAUTY, which is the name of Ms. Rowe’s beauty brand (Serial No. 98,965,759). She and Not Beauty have held a number of pop-ups at stops along the Grand National Tour. CTRLCORP applied for the NOT BEAUTY registration on January 15, 2025, but so far no further action has been taken.

Mr. Lamar and Ms. Rowe are accompanied on the tour by a DJ, Mustard, whom Mr. Lamar famously shouts out on the song “TV Off.” Mustard (whose real name is Dijon McFarlane) owns the registered mark DJ MUSTARD (Reg. No. 5,453,901) and has applied to register his catchphrase, MUSTARD ON THE BEAT (Serial No. 98,754,903), which is uttered in the song “Not Like Us,” among others. That application was published for opposition on April 22, 2025. 

Mr. Lamar’s and Ms. Rowe’s seemingly light portfolios of registered marks are in stark contrast to another major artist on tour this summer, Beyoncé. Mrs. Knowles-Carter owns at least 13 trademark registrations through her entity, BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC, including her name and various iterations thereof (e.g., BEYHIVE, Reg. No. 4,256,959). She also has 39 pending applications, including applications relating to her current Cowboy Carter Tour, such as BEYONCÉ AND THE RODEO CHITLIN’ CIRCUIT (Serial Nos. 98,480,835 and 98,481,920), COWBOY CARTER AND THE RODEO CHITLIN’ CIRCUIT (Serial No. 98,480,831), RODEO CHITLIN’ CIRCUIT (Serial No. 98,480,837), COWBOY CARTER (Serial No. 98,480,827), and RODEO CIRCUIT (Serial No. 98,513,128). Thus, Queen Bey’s trademark portfolio may soon be expanding.

Whether or not your favorite artist owns a lot of registered trademarks, we hope you enjoy some great music this summer!

A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away, voice acting was the exclusive domain of talented humans. But today, in the age of generative AI, even the iconic voice of a legendary villain can be conjured without a single vocal cord, raising major legal questions about name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights in the digital era.

Fortnite, the video game juggernaut by Epic Games, recently unleashed a new non-playable character (NPC) that harnesses the power of the dark side using AI-generated voice technology. In Fortnite, the voice of this helmeted antagonist in black armor does not come from James Earl Jones, who voiced the character in the movies, but from a machine trained to match his tone, rhythm, and cadence. While Jones has reportedly authorized the use of his voice, the move has ignited a firestorm across the galaxy, and among lawyers, about the future of AI-generated personas.

The core issue is whether digitally recreated voices, built by AI from past performances, are truly protected under existing NIL frameworks. Under current right-of-publicity laws, individuals have the right to control the commercial use of their identity, including their voice. But when a deep learning model generates new dialogue using a synthetic approximation of that voice, is it still “his” voice? Or has it become something new, a kind of legal clone trooper that escapes the reach of traditional protection?

Consent from the performer (or their estate) is critical, but it is not a Jedi mind trick that solves everything. Most NIL laws were not built for this kind of technology. Statutes, such as California’s Civil Code § 3344.1 protect deceased personalities, but only up to 70 years after death. Even then, enforcement can be shakier than a stormtrooper’s aim. Worse still, those laws do not always contemplate AI models that adapt and generate new content indefinitely, effectively turning a performer’s likeness into a holocron of infinite expressions.

What if a voice licensed for one project ends up being used across a galaxy of games, films, or even advertisements, without new compensation or oversight? This is not just speculative. Without clear contractual boundaries, a single voice training set could lead to endless reboots of a character, long after the original performer or their estate would have said, “I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Developers and studios may see AI as a shortcut to hyperspace, saving time, money, and coordination. But using AI to create derivative voice performances without transparent legal guardrails risks turning NIL rights into Bantha fodder. It also opens the door to future disputes over whether digital doubles require the same licensing rigor as human performers, especially as AI models become capable of improvising and even emotional nuance.

This latest NPC installment highlights a broader shift in the entertainment industry, where studios are increasingly turning to AI to preserve legendary characters. But with great power comes great (legal) responsibility. If the digital dark side is left unchecked, performers may lose control of their likenesses, their voices, and perhaps even their narrative legacies.

In short, the powers of AI are strong, but it must be balanced. Just as the council once debated whether a young Padawan could be trusted with too much power, we must now decide whether AI recreations deserve to wield the likeness of performers without limits. Our helmeted villain had a redemption arc that ultimately restored order in the galaxy, but if the law does not keep pace with technology, the entertainment industry might not be so lucky.

We are proud to announce that nine Seyfarth lawyers have been recognized as 2025 World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) Leaders, an honor that celebrates the “very best of the global IP legal profession.” Each honoree was selected for their proven track record, strong peer endorsements, and outstanding contributions to the intellectual property field.

The following Seyfarth attorneys were named WIPR Leaders in their respective areas of focus:

  • Jesse Coleman, Co-Chair of Seyfarth’s Health Care Industry Practice – Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Edward Maluf, Intellectual Property Partner – Non-Contentious & Contentious Trademarks
  • Dawn Mertineit, Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Non-Competes Partner – Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Lisa Meyerhoff, Intellectual Property Partner – Contentious Patents
    • Additionally cited as Highly Recommended for USA Patents 2024
  • Brian Michaelis, Intellectual Property Partner – Non-Contentious Patents
  • Jay Myers, Director of Innovation for Seyfarth’s IP practice group – Non-Contentious Trademarks
  • Kate Perrelli, Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Non-Competes Partner – Non-Contentious & Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Michael Wexler, Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Non-Competes Partner – Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Ken Wilton, Intellectual Property Partner – Contentious Trademarks

This recognition underscores the strength and depth of Seyfarth’s Intellectual Property team, which partners with clients—from Fortune 500 companies to fast-growing startups—to identify, protect, and maximize the value of their intellectual property rights across the globe.

Our Intellectual Property Counseling & Prosecution practice delivers strategic advice across the full IP lifecycle, while our Trademark & Copyright Prosecution group helps clients create and protect distinctive brands, navigate complex global regulations, and defend their valuable IP assets.

Congratulations to our 2025 WIPR Leaders!

Beginning May 13, 2025, the window between paying the issue fee and your patent officially issuing will become much shorter.

Until now, after paying the issue fee, applicants typically had a comfortable three weeks (sometimes longer) to file a continuation or divisional application. It was not an enormous amount of time, but it was usually enough to grab a coffee, think it over, and get your paperwork filed.

Starting May 13, 2025, you will have about one week.

For anyone who files continuation or divisional applications, this is a major shift. In short, the clock will be ticking much faster, and you will need to be ready.

Quick Refresher: What Are Continuations and Divisionals?

Simply put, a continuation application lets an applicant pursue additional claims based on the embodiments disclosed in the original specification. You might be seeking broader protection, or you may want to focus on a different embodiment. Either way, it gives you another opportunity to build on the original filing, so long as the initial application is still pending (i.e., the patent has not issued).

A divisional application comes into play when the USPTO tells you that your application covers more than one invention and asks you to choose one. You file a divisional to protect another invention that was disclosed but not pursued in the parent application.

The key thing to remember is that you must file continuation and divisional applications before the parent patent issues. Once the patent is issued, the door largely slams shut. Technically, you can file a petition to re-open prosecution, but it involves paying a fee and re-opening your patent to further examination. That is not ideal unless you have no other choice.

The Best Move: File Before Paying the Issue Fee

The smartest approach is to file any continuation or divisional application before you even pay the issue fee. The good news is this is not a heavy lift. When you receive a Notice of Allowance, you have three months to pay the issue fee. That gives you plenty of time to review your strategy, make decisions, and get any necessary continuation or divisional applications on file before the patent cruises toward issuance.

Here are some best practices to follow:

  • Build continuation and divisional discussions into your standard Notice of Allowance review.
  • Set internal deadlines to finalize your strategy before paying the issue fee.
  • Treat the issue fee payment as a warning siren, not the starting gun.

Long story short, do not wait until the last minute. Patent law rewards the early birds, and starting May 13, early birds will be the only ones who get the worms.

On Thursday, April 24, Seyfarth IP associate and International Trademark Association (INTA) Digital Event Committee member, JC Zwisler, will be a featured panelist in the International Trademark Association (INTA)’s virtual program: “INTA FOMO – How to Get to, and Make the Most of, The Annual Meeting”

Hosted by INTA’s Digital Events Committee, this practical and engaging session is designed for young practitioners with five or fewer years of experience in the brand legal profession. The panel will provide advice on gaining internal support to attend the Annual Meeting, tips for scheduling meetings with foreign associates and prospective clients, and how to make the most of the networking and educational opportunities available.

JC will join a dynamic panel of professionals from around the globe to share lessons learned, personal experiences, and actionable guidance for making the INTA Annual Meeting a springboard for professional development and meaningful connection.

Whether you’re new to INTA or attending the Annual Meeting for the first time, this webinar offers valuable insights to help you maximize your time—and make your presence count.

Register here to reserve your spot and start building your INTA game plan.

After weeks of hypothetical buzzer-beaters, patent face-offs, and a few well-placed Braveheart reference, Innovation Madness has crowned a champion.

And just like in the real NCAA tournament, the championship run was full of upsets, old-school dominance, and the thrill of seeing true innovation take center court. While Florida took home its third national title after a comeback win over Houston, here in the world of basketball inventions, the final moments came down to two titans of the game: The Basketball and Basketball Shoes.

But before we get to the winner, let’s rewind.

The Final Four

The matchups were as fierce as expected.

(1) The Basketball (1929, US1,718,305) vs. (11) Orange Basketball

The Basketball faced off against the crowd-favorite Orange Basketball, the mid-century breakthrough that made the game easier to follow for players, fans, and television audiences. As much as the high-visibility hero has earned its iconic status, it simply could not overcome the fundamental truth that the game begins and ends with the ball.

(2) Basketball Shoes (1934, US1,962,526) vs. (4) Basket Suspension System (1930, US1,757,350)

On the other side of the bracket, Basketball Shoes took on the Basket Suspension System, the mechanical setup that gave us retractable hoops and transformed school gyms into multipurpose arenas. While the suspension system has aged remarkably well, basketball-specific footwear has defined player performance for generations. In the end, the shoes advanced to the final.

That left us with the ultimate showdown.

The Championship Matchup

(1) The Basketball (US1,718,305) vs. (2) Basketball Shoes (US1,962,526)

It was an all-time matchup. One gave rise to the entire sport. The other allowed players to take it to new heights.

John T. Riddell’s 1934 basketball shoe patent introduced rubber soles designed specifically for basketball courts. It provided grip, support, and the basis for decades of athletic footwear innovation. From Converse to Jordans, every major leap in basketball culture has had a shoe to boot. Footwear has defined eras, turned players into icons, and even become the subject of movies and documentaries. But while the shoes may carry the player, it’s the ball that carries the game.

George L. Pierce’s 1929 basketball patent introduced balanced panels with rounded polar regions, stronger materials in key stress zones, and a more symmetrical shape that dramatically improved how the ball felt in the hands. His innovation eliminated the weaknesses of earlier designs and gave rise to the basketball as we know it today.

The panel shape and construction method are still used in modern basketballs, even with the evolution of synthetic materials. His work brought balance, improved grip, and predictable bounce. Most importantly, it brought consistency to a sport that was growing rapidly in popularity.

Why the Basketball Won

Yes, shoes help players move better, jump higher (it’s gotta be the shoes!), and reduce injury. They are essential to the player’s experience on the court. Over the decades, basketball footwear has evolved from simple rubber soles into a multi-billion-dollar industry driven by performance, style, and cultural influence.

Today, shoes are part of the game’s identity. The Jordan brand alone has become a global powerhouse, transcending basketball and embedding itself in fashion, music, and pop culture. Players are not just known for their stats; they’re known for their signature sneakers.

But the fact remains: no matter what’s on your feet, the game doesn’t start without the ball.

Pierce’s invention standardized the tool that every player touches, every fan watches, and every play depends on. Without it, there is no shot, no rebound, no buzzer-beater.

Final Thoughts

The Basketball has earned its spot at the top of the bracket because it did what every great invention should do. It solved a problem, redefined a standard, and withstood the test of time.

Thank you for following along with this year’s Innovation Madness. Whether you’re a patent practitioner, a basketball fan, or just someone with bracket trauma (sorry, Duke!), we hope you had as much fun as we did.

Until next year, keep inventing, keep creating, and never underestimate the power of a good idea.  And if you’re ever in the need for a good patent attorney, I know someone that can help.

The NCAA tournament crowned a new champion Monday night—and what a finish it was.

The Florida Gators stormed back from a double-digit deficit to snatch victory from the Houston Cougars, who couldn’t even get off a final shot. The drama was only heightened by Houston’s buzzer-beating win over Duke in the previous round. There’s only one way to describe it: Madness.

Congratulations to Florida on capturing their third national title, their third since 2006—when they upset none other than the UCLA Bruins (the most storied program in college basketball history, and no, I’m not bitter at all… it’s not like I skipped my Con Law class to watch that game or anything, or traveled all the way to Atlanta in 2007 only to watch Florida take down UCLA again in the Elite Eight.  Nope.  Totally fine. Not bitter. At all).

Welcome back to Innovation Madness, where game-changing basketball inventions go head-to-head to determine which patent truly changed the game. We’ve narrowed the field to eight elite contenders. The matchups are fierce. The stakes are patently high. Let’s tip it off.

Our elite eight matchups are over. Here’s how the games went down:

(1) The Basketball (1929, US1,718,305) vs. (9) Jump Training Apparatus (1961, US3,012,781)

The Breakdown:
The Jump Training Apparatus had a strong Round 1 showing, elevating (literally) the art of vertical improvement. But let’s be real: the ball is the game. George L. Pierce’s 1929 patent gave us the first purpose-built basketball, with improved grip and bounce that set the standard for every dribble, pass, and shot to come. Without this? There’s no need for training tools—or a game at all.

Winner: (1) The Basketball

(2) Basketball Shoes (1934, US1,962,526) vs. (10) Basketball Return Device (1966, US3,233,896)

The Breakdown:
The Return Device won hearts (and saved legs) in Round 1, giving shooters a way to train without chasing balls. But basketball-specific shoes—particularly Riddell’s 1934 patent with grippy rubber soles—revolutionized how the game is played. From traction to ankle support, this was the crossover (pun intended) from casual to elite performance.

Winner: (2) Basketball Shoes.

(3) Basketball Basin Holder (1891, US451,715) vs. (11) Orange Basketball

The Breakdown:
This matchup reads like a chapter in basketball’s origin story. On one side, the Basketball Basin Holder, an early innovation and a crucial step toward the modern net. On the other, the Orange Basketball, Tony Hinkle’s 1950s breakthrough that didn’t just change how the game was played, but how it was seen.

Now, credit where it’s due: the basin holder helped take us from peach baskets to more functional hoops. But it still kept the game, quite literally, stuck in a basket.  Meanwhile, the Orange Ball brought clarity, visibility, and unmistakable identity to the sport. Call it controversial if you must, but like Houston’s buzzer-beater over Duke, the Orange Basketball sneaks in at the last second, and steals the win.

Winner: (11) Orange Basketball

(4) Basket Suspension System (1930, US1,757,350) vs. (12) Training Basketball (2015, US9,149,701)

The Breakdown:
The Training Basketball, complete with finger guides and form-correcting indentations, was the darling underdog of Round 1. But now it runs into William Wallace’s ceiling-mounted Basket Suspension System, which turned crowded gyms into multi-use spaces and enabled retractable hoop setups decades before motorized lifts. Let’s be honest: this wasn’t even a fair fight. The Suspension System didn’t need to wear blue face paint or battle from atop a horse, this one was over before the tip-off.

Winner: (4) Basket Suspension System

Your Final Four:

  • (1) The Basketball
  • (2) Basketball Shoes
  • (11) Orange Basketball
  • (4) Basket Suspension System

A powerhouse lineup of fundamental innovations. Sure, some might call the Orange Basketball an underdog, but maybe, just maybe, we seeded it wrong. (We’ve made one or two mistakes in our lives—it’s not like this bracket was seeded by AI. Skynet’s still a few years away from becoming a basketball fan… hopefully basketball survives Judgment Day.) Still, visibility matters, and this high-contrast hero has proven it can hang with the heavyweights.

Next Up: The Final Four

Can the basketball defend its #1 seed? Will net nostalgia win out over suspension systems and footwear dominance? The stage is set, the stakes are high, and every innovation left on the board helped define how we play the game today.

Stay tuned for the Final Four breakdown—and the road to the championship.
Because in Innovation Madness, one idea cuts down the nets.

When we kicked off Innovation Madness: The Ultimate Basketball Patent Bracket, we asked one simple question: Which basketball invention truly changed the game?

Now, as the actual NCAA tournament has narrowed down to the last four teams, featuring all four No. 1 seeds for the first time since 2008 (and only the second time ever), it’s clear: this is not the year for Cinderella stories.

And in our bracket? Round 1 played out with a similar lack of upsets. Classics held strong. Foundational tech rose above. A few training tools gave it a good run, but when the dust settled, it was the heavyweights that mostly moved on.

We’ve recapped all six matchups from the opening round, here’s how each battle played out:

(8) Spiral Metal Hoop Connector (1936, US2,053,635) vs. (9) Jump Training Apparatus (1961, US3,012,781)

The Matchup:
Prior to the ‘635 patent, nets were attached using cords, ties, or loops that were time-consuming to install and easily worn down with use. The spiral hoop connector introduced a tieless net-attaching system featuring integrated spiral wire connectors that allowed nets to be manually attached or removed without separate cords or laces. That alone is a massive convenience upgrade, but there’s more. This patent also incorporated a reinforcing bar beneath the rear of the rim, designed to absorb and redistribute the stress from constant vibration caused by the ball hitting the rim. The spiral metal hoop connector addressed one of the most frequent failure points in basketball goal systems. In fact, this is still a common engineering approach in modern hoop design.

The Breakdown:
While the Jump Trainer helps individual players, the Spiral Metal Hoop Connector helps every player by keeping the rim strong, the net secure, and the game flowing.

Winner: (8) Spiral Metal Hoop Connector

(5) Early Basketball Goal (1909, US922,630) vs. (12) Training Basketball (2015, US9,149,701)

The Matchup:
This one pits infrastructure against instruction. On one side, we have Milton Reach’s 1909 basketball goal system, a major leap forward in bringing order to what had been a very improvised game. Before patents like this, hoops were often literal fruit baskets nailed to the wall, with no standard dimensions, mounting hardware, or stability. Reach’s invention introduced a wall-mounted goal with slots, pins, and spring-loaded mechanisms, making hoops easier to install, remove, and replicate—paving the way for standardized play.

On the other side, we have the Training Basketball, designed to help players develop proper shooting form. This smart ball features built-in indentations to guide hand placement, allowing shooters, especially beginners, to build muscle memory and consistency with every rep.

The Breakdown:
Reach’s goal was a building block for every modern backboard and hoop system.  It professionalized how the game was played.  The Training Basketball is innovative and useful, but its scope is limited to one aspect of the game, shooting, and mostly helps beginners.

Winner: (5) Early Basketball Goal

(4) Basket Suspension System (1930, US1,757,350) vs. (13) Shooting Form Guide (2018, US10,080,944)

The Matchup:
In this battle, we’ve got heavy-duty gym architecture facing off against modern shooting science.

William Wallace’s 1930 Basket Suspension System is directed to a ceiling-mounted backboard and hoop that could be raised out of the way when not in use. At a time when gymnasiums were shared with other sports, assemblies, and even dances, this invention introduced much-needed flexibility. It’s the ancestor of today’s motorized retractable basketball systems. Like the legend he shares a name with, this Wallace delivered freedom—in the form of ceiling-mounted backboards.

The Shooting Form Guide, patented in 2018 by Patrick Bowling, is designed to correct bad habits and build muscle memory with precision—basically, a pop-up shooting clinic built right onto the hoop.

The Breakdown:
While the form guide is clever, Wallace’s invention reshaped how gyms are physically built. Plus, it allows us to keep using Braveheart references.

Winner: (4) Basket Suspension System.

(3) First Basketball Net (1891, US451,715) vs. (14) Tipping Trainer (1955, US2,710,189)

The Matchup:
This one’s a battle between a fundamental shift in how the game is played and a tool for mastering a very specific, but valuable, skill.

In the red corner: Hiram B. Rockhill’s 1891 Basketball Net. This patent marked the end of the peach basket era and the beginning of modern basketball. By creating an open-ended net, Rockhill eliminated the need to manually retrieve the ball after every made shot. This literal game-changer increased the pace and fluidity of play. It also introduced the visual feedback we take for granted today: the satisfying swish of the net. No net, no “nothing but net.”

In the blue corner: the Tipping Trainer helps players practice the underrated art of tipping missed shots back into the hoop. It’s a smart solution to a real training challenge, helping athletes work on timing, positioning, and touch, especially valuable for bigs and rebounders.

The Breakdown:
We love an underdog. But the First Net changed everything. This one wasn’t close.

Winner: (3) First Basketball Net

(6) Removable Backboard (1919, US1,309,806) vs. (11) Orange Basketball

The Matchup:
Philo Medart’s Removable Backboard allowed facilities to take down or reposition hoops, making courts more versatile for other sports, assemblies, or school events. It’s the unsung hero of shared-use spaces, practical, efficient, and ahead of its time.

On the other hand, the Orange Basketball, introduced in the 1950s by Tony Hinkle, didn’t come with a patent, but it didn’t need one. Its high-visibility color improved tracking for players, fans, and cameras alike, and quickly became the global standard. If basketball had a mascot, it would be this ball.

The Breakdown:
Tough call. But the unpatented orange ball didn’t reinvent structure, it redefined identity. And it’s everywhere.

Winner: (11) Orange Basketball

(7) Rim with Net Attachments (1919, US1,308,831) vs. (10) Basketball Return Device (1966, US3,233,896)

The Matchup:
This one came down to early hardware vs. training innovation. Frank Albach’s 1919 patent introduced one of the first integrated systems for attaching nets to rims, an important upgrade at the time that added structure and durability to the basket itself. But the problem? It didn’t last. Just a couple of decades later, Alvie Sandeberg’s Spiral Metal Hoop Connector (US2,053,635) rendered Albach’s design obsolete. The new tieless system was easier to use, longer-lasting, and quickly became the go-to design for net attachment. Effectively replacing Albach’s legacy.

Meanwhile, the Basketball Return Device, patented in 1966, revolutionized individual practice. This device returned the ball to the shooter after each made basket, helping players log more reps with less hassle.

The Breakdown:
It’s the classic gear vs. training battle. But practice wins championships…. yes, we’re talking about practice!

Winner: (10) Basketball Return Device

As we head into the Elite Eight, the stakes get higher, the matchups get tougher, and the choices get even more difficult. Will legacy continue to dominate? Or is this the year a modern underdog breaks through? Come back next week when we jump into the next round!

🏀 Elite Eight Matchups

(1) The Basketball vs. (8) Spiral Metal Hoop Connector

(4) Basket Suspension System vs. (12) Training Basketball

(3) First Basketball Net vs. (11) Orange Basketball

(2) Basketball Shoes vs. (10) Basketball Return Device