window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);} gtag('js', new Date()); gtag('config', 'UA-12381093-3'); A Cardboard Problem: MLB v. UD

January 29, 2010


For those of you just getting to a computer today, Upper Deck a.k.a. the anti-card seems to be pissing off plenty of people in places they really don't want to. Chris Olds was the first to issue a statement from MLB Properties on the matter.

Click here to get an update on MLB v. UD


  1. Yeah, I saw it this morning and just facepalmed. I knew UD was gonna do something silly like this, it's like they just don't care anymore. And, hey, maybe they shouldn't? Who know?

  2. Nice attempt by Upper Deck to try to dance on the knife edge of litigation (again).

    It seems like UD will be releasing "2009" edition cards for years to come.

    I imagine that their defense will be some lame combination of 1) "fair use", as it's nearly impossible to get player photos without hat or jersey logos, and 2) they made a "good faith" effort to removing logos and other trademarks from the rest of the design, along with the wrapper disclaimer that no one will read.

    I don't think any defense is going to succeed. They already ticked off the MLB with its hidden subsidy of Razor (which also uses College and Minor League logos on caps and jerseys with impunity), and this certainly will not warm the hearts of their "former partner".

    It's reasonable to believe that these sets were in the works well before UD lost the MLB license, and that they've attempted to mitigate that loss, yet still release the cards, albeit delayed.

    I'd just like to see an Upper Deck that again someday spends more resources in their art department than in legal.

  3. Not the way UD wanted to start the year off on legal costs. I don't see how they can defend against a trademark infringement. I can't see how they can claim that this would be against 'anti-trust' laws either. Needless to say, they are taking a few lumps this year.