Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes Sued: NFL Stars Face Trademark Lawsuit Over 1587 Prime
A sneaker company claims the restaurant's name infringes its own brand, with damages that could cost the NFL stars millions.

Kansas City Chiefs stars Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partner Noble 33, are facing a legal challenge over the name of their steakhouse, 1587 Prime. The lawsuit, filed by sneaker company 1587 Sneakers, alleges that the restaurant's branding infringes its own use of the number combination. Similar to Taylor Swift's recent logo takedown on Swift Home, the sneaker company claimed it could mislead customers.
The complaint does not claim the players acted intentionally. But they argue that the restaurant's use of the numbers overlaps with the sneaker brand, which started selling shoes in April 2023. The shoe company applied for a trademark in October 2023, while 1587 Prime registered its restaurant trademark in December 2023.
How the Trademark Dispute Arose
According to court filings reported by ESPN, the sneaker company first sold its 1587-branded shoes in April 2023, before applying for a trademark the following October.
Meanwhile, Mahomes, Kelce and Noble 33 opened their steakhouse later in 2023. They ended up naming it 1587 Prime by combining Mahomes' and Kelce's jersey numbers.
Legal experts note that while trademarks in different industries often coexist, complications arise when the brands expand into overlapping product lines. In this case, 1587 Prime sells not only food but also clothing and merchandise.
Josh Gerben, a trademark attorney not involved in the case, explained that the key issue is whether consumers might reasonably believe the restaurant and sneaker company are connected.
'Given that the marks are essentially identical here, is a restaurant and a shoe company too close? Are consumers likely to be confused in thinking they are affiliated with one another?' he said, underlining the grey area in trademark law.
Consumer Confusion and Potential Damages
The sneaker company alleges that 'scores of consumers' have contacted them believing 1587 Sneakers and 1587 Prime are affiliated. While evidence to support this claim has not yet been provided publicly, it could form a central argument if the case reaches trial.
Adam King, co-founder of 1587 Sneakers, issued a statement expressing a willingness to resolve the matter amicably. He said that, from the outset, the company had hoped for mutual understanding, but now feels it is necessary to pursue legal remedies.
The plaintiffs are asking the restaurant group to stop using the 1587 name on both food and merchandise and are seeking unspecified damages. No public statement has been issued by Mahomes' representatives, while Kelce's publicist declined to comment.
How Likely Can the Plaintiffs Win?
To begin with, Mahomes and Kelce can be sued, because anyone who believes their trademark is infringed has the right to file a claim. But whether the sneaker company will succeed is far from certain. Trademark law generally allows identical marks to coexist if they are in different industries — for example, shoes versus restaurants — because consumers are unlikely to confuse the two. The complication here is that 1587 Prime also sells branded clothing, which overlaps with the sneaker company's products.
Courts will focus on likelihood of confusion, the strength of the original mark, and who used it first. However, the plaintiffs' success is not guaranteed.
But if the sneaker company succeeds, the financial impact on Mahomes and Kelce could be substantial. Trademark infringement damages vary, but they often include lost profits, profits earned by the infringing party, and sometimes statutory penalties.
For a high-profile case like this, damages could realistically reach £500,000 ($620,000) to £1 million ($1.24 million) or more, especially considering the restaurant's branded merchandise and potential confusion with the shoe line. Legal fees alone could add £100,000 ($124,000)–£200,000 ($248,000).
While these figures are not guaranteed, a court ruling against them could hit both the stars' business ventures and reputations significantly.
© Copyright IBTimes 2025. All rights reserved.
















