From the Gridiron to the Courtroom: Kelce and Mahomes Face Trademark DisputeFebruary 25, 2026

A federal complaint has been filed against Kansas City Chiefs superstars Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes, and their steakhouse restaurant, “1587 Prime”, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint (Case No. 1:26-CV-01337), which was filed by 1587 Sneakers, Inc. (“1587 Sneakers”), alleges three causes of action: 1) Federal Unfair Competition and False Designation of Origin; 2) New York Unfair Trade Practices; and 3) Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition. All three counts stem from the alleged trademark infringement and, interestingly, appear to rely on the theory of reverse confusion.

Where traditional trademark infringement typically entails a prominent company being concerned with a new player unfairly benefiting from a potentially confusing trademark, reverse confusion entails a larger or more prominent new user causing consumers to believe that the senior user’s goods or services originate from that new user.

“1587 Prime” was created from a combination of Mahomes’ and Kelce’s jersey numbers.

As taken from the website for 1587 Sneakers, 1587 is the year Asians arrived in America, and that appears to be the basis for their name.

1587 Sneakers’ concern is reflected in its allegation that it feared “that such a high-profile project choosing a brand name virtually identical to that of its own would overshadow it and cause irreparable damage.”

The shoe and apparel company seeks to disgorge profits from the Kelce and Mahomes restaurant, prevent its use of “1587” in the restaurant name, and recover additional damages for corrective advertising.

Reliance on a theory of reverse confusion is rare but illustrates how celebrity or other high-profile ventures may affect consumer confusion and, ultimately, whether trademark infringement may occur. Typically, there is very little concern over the similarity of a trademark used for restaurant services versus one used for sneakers and other apparel. However, because celebrity ventures are met with near immediate notoriety, and because celebrity endorsements can span many different industries, there is a significantly greater likelihood of consumer confusion.

What about the practicalities of the dispute? Despite both parties having filed applications to register their respective designations, because 1587 Sneakers does not a federal registration to date, it must rely on common law trademark infringement as its basis for the action.

Moreover, the real battle—and the real cost—will lie not simply in whether trademark infringement exists, but in determining who is infringing whom. Common law trademark rights, those which 1587 Sneakers must rely on for the purposes of this suit, are defined by geographic scope and influence. For instance, a lawn service located in Miami may only have rights within the city itself and may not be able to enforce against newer user’s rights in the same mark for lawn services in Seattle. In contrast, having a federal registration would extend those rights nationwide.

Because 1587 Sneakers does not have a federal registration, it will need to undertake the effort and costs of proving that it has sufficient rights to “1587” in Kansas City, where the Chief-stars’ restaurant is located. Complicating the matter further is the fact that 1587 Prime Steakhouse does have a federal registration (Reg. No. 8,138,965) and as such we can expect the fight to take place not over just who has superior rights, but where each as superior rights as well.

However this case is decided, it highlights an important reality for today’s brands. Celebrity-backed ventures can achieve immediate, nationwide visibility, and that kind of exposure can create conflict even between businesses operating in very different spaces. Companies of all sizes should look beyond a basic registration search and consider the real-world strength, reach, and recognition of their marks before launching. Taking steps early to clear, register, and protect a brand is not just a formality, but a practical safeguard against costly and disruptive disputes.

Andrew Morgan is a Trademark Attorney in the Trademark & Copyright Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC (MVS).  For additional information please visit www.ipmvs.com or contact Andrew directly via email at andrew.morgan@ipmvs.com.