Wrigley View Rooftop, a company that sells top cards in a tower next to Wrigley Field to watch Cubs activities and concerts, was sued by the Chicago Cubs for what the group called illegal revenue and intellectual property theft.
The controversy that surrounds it is not fresh. The Cubs and the owners of nearby complexes have frequently litigated in court over their legitimate business interests, which is to profit from Wrigley Field occasions because of their site. 20 years ago, the owners and the team struck a deal where they agreed to share about 17 % of their revenue from stadium rooftop seats and 11 % of billboard revenue with the Cubs. In the following decades, the Cubs bought many of those qualities, and bargains with the remaining owners just expired.

Enter: the present debate between the Cubs and Wrigley View Rooftop.
In April, Crain’s Chicago Business reported that discussions on a new lease were difficult. According to Tim Cerney, an attorney for Wrigley View Rooftop owner Aiden Dunican, the Cubs demanded terms to increase the stadium’s rooftop seat revenue share to 30 % and the revenue from billboards to 50 %. Additionally, there might be screens and banners that may prevent views from the rooftop seats of the stadium that are not in use.
In their problem, the Cubs argue Dunican and his business are answerable for theft, unjust enrichment and cruel competitors. Wrigley View Rooftop, according to the Cubs, is operating without a license, despite various rooftop owners receiving one from the team to offer tickets.
There is no common straight to a life Cubs activity or its broadcast, according to the lawyers Timothy Knapp and Kent Hayden of Kirkland & Ellis, who are attorneys for the Ricketts family. The group says it holds an “undisputed home right” to Cubs game.
Additionally, the Cubs accuse Wrigley View Rooftop of erroneously advertising a Cubs ‘ support, which they claim causes confusion among consumers regarding whether there is a legitimate business partnership between Wrigley View Rooftop and the staff. The complaint alleges that using Cubs ‘ signs violates trademarks.
Much of the problem deals with what the Cubs refer to as a complimentary rider issue. Businesses that do n’t pay for the goods they are selling, like Cubs games and other Wrigley events, can profit from sales of rooftop seats that are out of the stadium.
To that end, the Kids note they spend “more than a hundred million dollars each year to use people” and more tens of millions on instructors, scouts, systems, a minor league system and several other facets of football operations. The team even pays “millions” on updating and maintaining a traditional, 110- yr- old ballpark to ensure that fans receive” the best experience possible at Cubs games”.
The Kids explain they “recoup their expense” in part by selling tickets to sports, meaning” the experience of viewing life Kids ball as it happens”. Some solution- holders even buy goods, memorabilia, food and drink at concession stands, so supplying the Cubs more revenue. The Cubs contend that Dunican and Wrigley View Rooftop “make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, all without the costs associated with the Cubs ‘ solution.”

The Cubs ask for a permanent injunction that would bar the accused from selling tickets to watch life football games and other events taking place at Wrigley Field, including a jury trial, economic damages, and permanent injunction.
In the upcoming weeks, Dunican and Wrigley View Rooftop may respond to the problem and rebut any allegations of crime. They’ll even movements for the complaint’s departure.
Owners of previous lawsuits involving the Cubs and top owners claimed that the crew purposefully played Cubs games in plain view in a town with views of the ballpark. Entrepreneurs have argued in the same way that there is no legal justification for the claim that watching a live performance from a nearby theater is illegal.
Another theory contends that the Cubs ‘ theft state ought to be rejected because it typically involves intangible property, such as stock quotes or news developments, rather than watching professional athletes play games.
Users have even argued for property rights protection. As long as the use is in line with land use regulations, they’ve continued to say they can use their properties however they please. Erecting furniture from their qualities, they have claimed, counts as lawful use.
Although the litigation may lead to amazing legal arguments and counterarguments about rights involving real and intellectual property, it’s feasible, if not probable, that the parties will settle disputes out of court. The Kids may get paid, which is a resolvable issue, the main issue in the case.