Four reasons I hate the Chicago Cubs:
- Their fans routinely crowd into Great American Ballpark and root against the Reds;
- They routinely beat the Reds;
- Anthony Rizzo played for them;
- Javy Baez played for them.
I was prepared to add a fifth reason to the list when I read that the Cubs recently prevailed in a federal case in the Northern District of Illinois and obtained an injunction prohibiting a business located across the street from Wrigley Field from selling rooftop tickets to fans who want to watch Cubs games from that unique vantage point. I was all set to call them bullies, but as I reflected on the facts of the case, I must grudgingly admit that maybe the Cubs are right.
The defendant in the case is Wrigley View, a rooftop business located adjacent to Wrigley Field, offering views of the Chicago skyline, Lake Michigan, and Wrigley Field. The premises include stadium-style bleacher seating and a sky deck
on the rooftop that can accommodate up to 200 guests.
From the seats at Wrigley View, customers can see into Wrigley Field over the barriers of the stadium. Wrigley View sells tickets to the rooftop on days there are games and events at Wrigley Field. It is only open for business on game days and days with other Wrigley Field events. The Wrigley View website includes a schedule of the Cubs’ home games with hyperlinks to purchase tickets, comparing the Wrigley View experience to that of a ballgame at Wrigley Field.
The sole source of revenue for Wrigley View is selling tickets to its customers for admission to the rooftop, which includes unlimited ballpark-style concessions. Guests pay approximately $125 to $150 per person to purchase tickets. According to the court, Wrigley View made "a significant amount of gross ticket sale revenue in 2024 and the first half of 2025. In the spring of 2024, the Cubs installed four semi-transparent mesh screens obstructing the view from Wrigley View. Wrigley View continued to sell tickets even after the Cubs erected the screens.
The prior owner of Wrigley View had reached a settlement with the Cubs, which required Wrigley View to pay Plaintiff 17% of their Gross Revenues annually and 11% of Billboard Revenue for the duration of the Agreement. In exchange for making royalty payments as part of the Agreement, Wrigley View was granted rights to sell tickets to watch Cubs games from its rooftop, use certain Cubs trademarks, and advertise that they are endorsed by the Cubs. That ended on December 31, 2023. Before the Agreement expired, Wrigley View received a letter from the Cubs' outside counsel stating that when the Agreement term ended, Wrigley View would no longer have the rights to sell tickets and use Cubs trademarks. The letter added that “if you and the Cubs do not enter a new agreement by December 8, 2023, the Cubs will not engage in further discussions regarding calendar year 2024 and you will not be able to obtain any right or license from the Cubs for 2024.”
Hardball indeed.
After the Agreement expired, Wrigley View continued to operate its rooftop business and sell tickets to the experience of watching live Cubs ballgames. Upon receiving a copy of the complaint in this case, Wrigley View's owner informed its employees and its independent website developer that all marketing materials and the Wrigley View website had to be free of the Marks. Wrigley View reviewed and removed certain references to the Cubs, including changing its ticket names to simply “Chicago vs. [the opposing team].” However, following the filing of the complaint in this matter, the Wrigley View website still included a PDF brochure containing the Cubs logo. Wrigley View also continued to include the statement “Official Partner of the Cubs” in its marketing through 2025.
In ruling in the Cubs' favor, the court looked to a 1938 case where the court affirmed the Pittsburgh Pirates' right to shut down a radio station's broadcast of Pirates games. In that case, the radio station positioned observers at high vantage points to watch the ballgames over the fences and broadcast live play-by-play descriptions, despite lacking authorization to do so. The radio station sought to “justify its action on the ground that … its observers [were] stationed on its own property without trespassing on plaintiffs’ property.”
That defense didn’t cut it in 1938, and it didn't work in 2026.
The court granted summary judgment in the Cubs' favor on claims of misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and trademark infringement. Once the court made those findings, it also granted a permanent injunction prohibiting Wrigley View from using the Cubs' marks and from selling tickets to view Cubs' games.
The court determined that customers were likely to be confused about the Cubs' relationship to Wrigley View. To support its case, the Cubs introduced reviews of the Wrigley View experience that included comments that its staff was “very rude and not accommodating,” that the business will “rip you off,” and that the business did not adhere to the terms of its customer contract. To the extent those customers would associate Wrigley View with the Cubs, the court concluded that Wrigley View's conduct “poses unmistakable peril to [the Cubs’] goodwill.”
Wrigley View is admittedly David to the Cubs' Goliath. But their conduct here made it easier for the court to hand this one to the Cubbies.
Jack Greiner is a Cincinnati attorney. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues. He can be reached at greinerjack46@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: Federal court sides with Wrigley Field bullies | Strictly Legal
