The Federación Mexicana de Fútbol Asociación sued Kalshi on 22 September in the Southern District of New York, alleging the prediction market operator used the “Liga MX” name and Liga MX club logos to promote bets without authorization. According to Sportico’s Michael McCann and Dan Bernstein, it is the first known case to test whether a prediction market may reference a sports league’s wordmarks and imagery — the question sitting underneath the whole sector’s relationship with the competitions it prices.
That question matters because of where the value comes from. An event contract on a Liga MX match is priced on a game Kalshi does not own, stage, or share revenue from. When a league has no sponsorship or licensing agreement with the operator, trademark law is close to the only lever it has, and the fight is over whether a mark is being used to describe an event or to borrow the authority of the league that runs it.
What FMF alleges
FMF owns a live US Patent and Trademark Office registration for “Liga MX,” granted in 2015 and covering apparel, advertising and educational services among other categories. The complaint, drafted by attorney Martin Krezalek of Blank Rome and assigned to U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken, argues Kalshi presents Liga MX “as not just a participant in the verification of the market outcome, but as the source on which the market’s resolution depends.”
The federation alleges consumer confusion about the source of the mark and a “false impression of sponsorship” or endorsement by the league, claims infringement under federal and New York law, and alleges bad faith — it says it sent multiple cease-and-desist letters, beginning with one from its general counsel in July, and that Kalshi kept using the marks. FMF seeks an injunction covering the Liga MX mark and club names, plus damages.
The asymmetry FMF points to
The complaint notes that Kalshi calls MLB games “Pro Baseball,” refers to MLB clubs by city rather than trademarked name, and labels the Super Bowl “Pro Football Champion” — yet uses Mexico’s league name and club marks directly. As FMF describes it, Kalshi’s answer is that a generic descriptor would be insufficient because Mexico has multiple professional divisions with clubs in the same cities.
Sportico notes the practice is not unique to Mexico: Kalshi has also used Ryder Cup and Canadian Football League marks, and has advertised using the Super Bowl without permission. After pushback from the NCAA during the 2025 college football season, the company added boilerplate to most markets stating it is “not affiliated, associated, authorized, endorsed by or in any way officially connected with the Governing League.” Kalshi did not respond to Sportico’s request for comment and will answer the complaint in the coming weeks.
The defense, and why leagues have struggled with it
Per FMF’s account of the July correspondence, Kalshi’s general counsel replied that the use was lawful under nominative fair use — reportedly comparing it to Vanguard or JPMorgan “using the Apple trademark to identify stock investments.” That doctrine applies when a mark is necessary to describe a product or event and does not signal endorsement, and it is the same defense DraftKings is running against the NCAA, which sued in March over March Madness-related marks.
The NCAA argues DraftKings unlawfully “trade[s] on” and “usurp[s]” league goodwill “at the precise moment of peak public attention.” DraftKings responds that its references “function only as labels telling consumers what tournament or round they are engaging with,” and adds a First Amendment argument for editorial use on the DraftKings Network. A federal judge found some NCAA arguments persuasive but denied a temporary restraining order; that case continues in Indiana.
Who bears the cost
The pattern in both cases is that the aggrieved league carries the burden of litigation while the operator keeps selling. A federation that wins gets an injunction later; one that loses gets nothing, after years in court, while its brand has been used as an on-ramp to bets it does not control or profit from. The pressure falls hardest on leagues without NFL-scale licensing machinery — a foreign federation pursuing a US prediction market on its own.
The boilerplate disclaimer addresses confusion about who is behind a market. It does not address the value being taken, and it appeared only after a governing body complained. Whether Judge Oetken sees the confusion evidence FMF describes as substantial, or accepts the fair-use framing, will set the template for the rest of the leagues that have not signed deals.