---
title: "Control Is Ownership: What the Big League Chew Ruling Teaches Every Brand That Licenses Its Name"
description: A court let Big League Chew's trade dress case against its licensee proceed. Why a controlled licensee's use counts as yours, and how licensors keep control.
image: https://www.segarraip.com/hubfs/segarraip-5-1.png
---

[Skip to content](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name#main-content)

[![](https://www.segarraip.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Segarra%20IP.Icon.png?width=200&height=100&name=Segarra%20IP.Icon.png)](https://www.segarraip.com)

- [Trademark Services](https://www.segarraip.com/trademark-services)
- About
  
  Show submenu for About 
  
    - [About Pablo](https://www.segarraip.com/about-pablo-segarra)
    - [Speaking](https://www.segarraip.com/speaking)
- Resources
  
  Show submenu for Resources 
  
    - [Ultimate Trademark Guide](https://www.segarraip.com/trademark-registration-guide)
    - [BLOG](https://www.segarraip.com/writing)
- [Contact](https://www.segarraip.com/contact)

Open main navigation

Close main navigation

- [Trademark Services](https://www.segarraip.com/trademark-services)
- About
  
  Show submenu for About 
  
    - [About Pablo](https://www.segarraip.com/about-pablo-segarra)
    - [Speaking](https://www.segarraip.com/speaking)
- Resources
  
  Show submenu for Resources 
  
    - [Ultimate Trademark Guide](https://www.segarraip.com/trademark-registration-guide)
    - [BLOG](https://www.segarraip.com/writing)
- [Contact](https://www.segarraip.com/contact)
- [Get A Free Trademark Review](https://www.segarraip.com/trademark-services)

[Get A Free Trademark Review](https://www.segarraip.com/trademark-services)

[All posts](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/all)

 September 26, 2026

# Control Is Ownership: What the Big League Chew Ruling Teaches Every Brand That Licenses Its Name

![Picture of Pablo Segarra, Esq.](https://www.segarraip.com/hs-fs/hubfs/PabloWritingCover.png?width=50&name=PabloWritingCover.png) By  [Pablo Segarra, Esq.](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/author/pablo-segarra-esq)  ·   5 minute read

Trademark Intelligence / Licensing / Pablo Segarra

Big League Chew was born in a minor-league clubhouse in 1980. Since 2010, a licensee has made every pouch. In a ruling reported this week, a federal court let the brand owner's trade dress case move forward on a principle every licensing brand should understand: when you control the quality, your licensee's use counts as yours.

| 1B+ Pouches of Big League Chew sold, per its creator in 2023. A licensee has made every one since 2010. |
| --- |

Big League Chew is baseball culture in a pouch. Portland Mavericks pitcher Rob Nelson created it in 1980, former Yankees All-Star Jim Bouton helped pitch it to Wrigley, and by 2023 Nelson said more than a billion pouches had been sold, [per the brand's history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_League_Chew). Since 2010, Ford Gum & Machine Company in Akron, New York, has manufactured it under license. A separate August 2026 court opinion describes that license as running through 2045, with renewal options to 2097, [according to the court's order in a related trade secrets case](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/big-league-chew-trade-secrets.pdf).

That arrangement produced a fight over a deceptively simple question: if the licensee makes every product, who owns the look of the product? In 2024, Big League Chew Properties and the Rob Nelson Company sued Ford Gum for trade dress infringement. Ford Gum argued it was the one entitled to the shredded-gum trade dress.

Now the brand owner's case is moving forward. According to [Wolters Kluwer's IP Law Daily, reporting on September 25](https://www.vitallaw.com/news/trademark-n-d-ill-trade-dress-case-over-big-league-chew-gum-moves-forward/ipm012eb7e22bfd764332b1db27a80cbd331d), the court held that the "use in commerce" a trademark owner needs can be satisfied through the use of a licensee the owner controls.

| 1980 Big League Chew created | 2010 Ford Gum license begins | 2045 License term, renewable to 2097 | Sept 25 Ruling reported |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

## What went wrong

The brand's history shows how a licensing relationship can drift toward an ownership dispute. According to [Sportico's 2024 reporting on the complaint](https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/big-league-chew-lawsuit-1234817128/), the 2010 license gave Ford Gum manufacturing rights while Big League Chew kept "exclusive ownership" of its trademarks and trade dress, and Big League Chew supplied production equipment.

Then the lines blurred. Big League Chew alleged Ford Gum filed its own federal application in April 2024 for a three-dimensional mark described as shreds or strings of gum, that its executive described Ford Gum as the maker of Big League Chew, and that the brand's website displayed Ford Gum's copyright notice. Ford Gum, in [its counter-lawsuit](https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/big-league-chew-counter-lawsuit-1234820513/), said a March 2024 agreement let it own and enforce the shredded gum trade dress, and that Big League Chew had declined to act when a competitor planned its own shredded gum. It also said Nelson initially did not remember that agreement. These are allegations on both sides, and none have been decided on the merits.

Whatever the court ultimately finds, the pattern is familiar. The licensor owns the brand on paper. The licensee runs the factory, the website, the customer relationships, and the enforcement.

| The party doing the work starts to look like the party that owns it. |
| --- |

## What does "use in commerce" mean for a brand that licenses its name?

| **Under federal trademark law, a brand owner can meet the use requirement through a licensee, as long as the owner controls the nature and quality of the goods sold under the mark.** The Lanham Act treats a controlled licensee as a "related company," and its use benefits the trademark owner. That is the principle the court reportedly applied. The catch is the word control. A licensor that stops supervising quality risks losing the benefit, and in extreme cases the mark itself. |
| --- |

The rule appears in [15 U.S.C. § 1055](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1055), which says use by related companies inures to the benefit of the registrant, and the definition of "related company" in [15 U.S.C. § 1127](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127), which turns on control over the nature and quality of the goods. It is why a licensing brand can own a mark without ever running a production line.

## What evidence matters

Cases like this turn less on who invented the product than on the paper and practice around the license. Four kinds of evidence usually decide them.

| Evidence | What it shows |
| --- | --- |
| The license agreement | Who owns the marks and trade dress, and who can register and enforce them |
| Quality control records | Whether the licensor actually supervised the product, which keeps the licensee's use working for the licensor |
| Later agreements and messages | Whether ownership or enforcement rights shifted, as Ford Gum claims happened in 2024 |
| Public presentation | Who the market sees as the source: websites, packaging credits, copyright notices, and executive statements |

Notice how many of those are ordinary business habits rather than legal filings. A website footer, an offhand text, and a quality review nobody bothered to document can all become exhibits.

## When it could have been prevented

Every licensing brand has three moments where a dispute like this can be headed off.

| 1 | At signing. The license should state plainly that the licensor owns all marks, trade dress, and goodwill, that the licensee's use benefits the licensor, and that the licensee will not file its own applications for the brand's elements. |
| --- | --- |
| 2 | During the relationship. The licensor should exercise and document quality control: approving samples, reviewing packaging, and auditing production. Control on paper that is never exercised is weak protection. |
| 3 | When something changes. A new competitor, a new enforcement need, or a request to shift ownership should trigger a written amendment reviewed by counsel, not an informal exchange of messages. |

## The honest complication

It is easy to cast this as founders versus a manufacturer. The reality is more complicated. Licensees often invest heavily in a brand they do not own, and Ford Gum says it paid for enforcement and relied on an agreement giving it rights. Licensors sometimes take the royalties and leave the hard work of protecting the brand to someone else. Courts will weigh both.

The ruling also decided a threshold question, not the case. It reportedly means Big League Chew can rely on Ford Gum's controlled use to establish its own use in commerce. It does not decide who owns the shredded gum trade dress, whether any 2024 agreement changed that, or whether trade dress in the product's shape is protectable at all. We were not able to review the full opinion, so its exact reasoning may be narrower than summaries suggest.

| Control on paper is a promise. Control in practice is ownership. |
| --- |

## What another founder should notice

Licensing is one of the best ways to scale a brand without building factories. It is also the arrangement most likely to make a founder's ownership invisible. The licensee's name ends up on the website. The licensee answers the customer calls. The licensee spots the knockoff first. Ten years in, the founder owns the brand in a contract drawer and almost nowhere else.

Nelson turned a clubhouse habit into a cultural icon that has lasted more than four decades. This ruling says the law can still see his company as the owner, because ownership can flow through a licensee it controls. Keeping that control visible, documented, and exercised is the work every licensing brand has to do, long before anyone files suit.

## Frequently Asked Questions

### Does a licensee's use of a trademark count as the owner's use?

Yes, if the owner controls the nature and quality of the goods or services. Federal law treats a controlled licensee as a related company, and its use benefits the trademark owner. Without real quality control, the owner risks losing that benefit.

### Can a licensee register the licensor's trademark?

A licensee generally has no right to register the licensor's brand elements as its own, and a well-drafted license prohibits it. If a licensee files anyway, the licensor may oppose the application or seek cancellation, depending on timing and the agreement's terms.

### What should a trademark license agreement include?

At minimum: clear ownership of all marks, trade dress, and goodwill; quality control rights and procedures; limits on the licensee's filings and enforcement; how enforcement costs and recoveries are handled; and what happens to inventory and brand assets when the license ends.

### What is trade dress?

Trade dress is the overall look of a product or its packaging, such as shape, color, or design, when it identifies the source. Product design trade dress is protectable only if it has acquired distinctiveness through public recognition and is not functional.

| Segarra IP PLLC · Licensing and brand ownership License the brand. Keep the control. [Request a trademark review](https://www.segarraip.com/trademark-services) |
| --- |

## Sources

| [Wolters Kluwer IP Law Daily, "Trade dress case over Big League Chew gum moves forward" (Sept. 25, 2026)](https://www.vitallaw.com/news/trademark-n-d-ill-trade-dress-case-over-big-league-chew-gum-moves-forward/ipm012eb7e22bfd764332b1db27a80cbd331d) |
| --- |
| [Sportico, Big League Chew trademark case (2024)](https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/big-league-chew-lawsuit-1234817128/) |
| [Sportico, Ford Gum counter-lawsuit (2024)](https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/big-league-chew-counter-lawsuit-1234820513/) |
| [Memorandum Opinion and Order, Ford Gum & Machine Co. v. Heiser, No. 25 CV 13301 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 7, 2026)](https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/big-league-chew-trade-secrets.pdf) |
| [Big League Chew brand history (Wikipedia)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_League_Chew) |
| [15 U.S.C. § 1055, use by related companies (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1055) |

Pablo Segarra, Esq. is a federal trademark attorney and founder of Segarra IP PLLC. He advises brand owners on licensing, trade dress, and keeping control of the assets that make a brand valuable.

General information, not legal advice.

Share: [facebook-f icon](http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name) [linkedin-in icon](http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name) [twitter icon](https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name) [pinterest-p icon](http://pinterest.com/pin/create/link/?url=https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name) [envelope icon](mailto:?body=https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name)

## Related posts

[![](https://www.segarraip.com/hubfs/download-2.png)](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/vicblends-raised-7-million-before-selling-a-single-jar.-investors-will-ask-who-owns-the-name)

[weekly](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/tag/weekly)

### [VicBlends Raises $7M Pre-Revenue: The Importance of Trademark Ownership](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/vicblends-raised-7-million-before-selling-a-single-jar.-investors-will-ask-who-owns-the-name)

[![](https://www.segarraip.com/hubfs/global.png)](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/a-global-audience-is-not-a-company-how-creators-turn-attention-into-an-owned-brand)

[AEO](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/tag/aeo)

### [A Global Audience Is Not a Company: How Creators Turn Attention Into an Owned Brand](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/a-global-audience-is-not-a-company-how-creators-turn-attention-into-an-owned-brand)

[![](https://www.segarraip.com/hubfs/download-4.png)](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/if-i-were-your-trademark-attorney-an-offer-to-buy-your-agency-just-landed)

[weekly](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/tag/weekly)

### [Ensuring Ownership Before Selling Your Creative Agency](https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/if-i-were-your-trademark-attorney-an-offer-to-buy-your-agency-just-landed)

[![](https://www.segarraip.com/hs-fs/hubfs/Segarra%20IP.Icon.png?width=200&height=100&name=Segarra%20IP.Icon.png)](http://www.pablosegarra.com)

Own your mark. Build with confidence.

[linkedin-in icon](https://www.linkedin.com/in/pablo-segarra-esq/) [instagram icon](https://www.instagram.com/pablosegarraesq)

© 2026 Segarra IP PLLC. All rights reserved.

```json
{
  "@context" : "https://schema.org",
  "@type" : "BlogPosting",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : "Pablo Segarra, Esq.",
    "url" : "https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/author/pablo-segarra-esq"
  },
  "dateModified" : "2026-09-26T15:31:26.656Z",
  "datePublished" : "2026-09-26T15:08:26.000Z",
  "headline" : "Control Is Ownership: What the Big League Chew Ruling Teaches Every Brand That Licenses Its Name",
  "image" : [ "https://www.segarraip.com/hubfs/segarraip-5-1.png" ],
  "mainEntityOfPage" : {
    "@id" : "https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name",
    "@type" : "WebPage"
  },
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://www.segarraip.com/hubfs/Segarra%20IP.Icon.png"
    },
    "name" : "Segarra IP PLLC"
  }
}
```

```json
{
  "@context" : "http://schema.org",
  "@type" : "Article",
  "author" : {
    "@type" : "Person",
    "name" : [ "Pablo Segarra, Esq." ],
    "url" : "https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/author/pablo-segarra-esq"
  },
  "datePublished" : "2026-09-26T15:08:26+0000",
  "description" : "A court let Big League Chew's trade dress case against its licensee proceed. Why a controlled licensee's use counts as yours, and how licensors keep control.",
  "headline" : "Control Is Ownership: What the Big League Chew Ruling Teaches Every Brand That Licenses Its Name",
  "image" : "https://50409530.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/50409530/segarraip-5-1.png",
  "publisher" : {
    "@type" : "Organization",
    "logo" : {
      "@type" : "ImageObject",
      "url" : "https://50409530.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/50409530/Segarra%20IP.Icon.png"
    },
    "name" : "Segarra IP PLLC"
  },
  "url" : "https://www.segarraip.com/segarraip-blog/control-is-ownership-what-the-big-league-chew-ruling-teaches-every-brand-that-licenses-its-name"
}
```