The 2026 FIFA World Cup will be one of the largest and most commercially intense sporting events ever staged, spanning the United States, Canada, and Mexico. For brands, it presents a rare opportunity to reach a global audience in real time during a cultural moment that dominates attention for weeks. That visibility also makes the tournament one of the most aggressively policed marketing environments in the world. FIFA and local organizers closely monitor how brands show up during the tournament, especially digital campaigns, influencer content, and on-the-ground activations. Enforcement ramps up significantly during the tournament window, and it often moves faster than traditional trademark disputes. Campaigns can be challenged, taken down, or modified in real time, sometimes after launch and in public view. For non‑sponsors, the question is not whether you can participate. You can. The question is how to do it without crossing the line into an implied commercial association with the event. If you are working on a tight timeline, it helps to understand how these lines are applied in practice. The Sponsorship Line Is Brighter Than It Looks At the core of World Cup marketing is a simple distinction: official sponsors vs. everyone else. Official sponsors pay for the ability to use World Cup branding elements, including: “World Cup,” “FIFA,” and similar protected terms Host city/year combinations used in an event-specific way Logos, trophies, mascots, or official visual elements Campaigns that imply endorsement, affiliation, or partnership Non-sponsors, by contrast, do not have contractual rights to use these assets and are on shakier footing to do so if the use implies a connection to the event. Unauthorized uses of these terms are clear targets for enforcement. The analysis ultimately turns on consumer perception, not technical wording. Ambush Marketing Is About Perception, Not Intent One of the most common ways non-sponsors cross that line in practice is through so-called “ambush marketing” campaigns, designed to capture the attention surrounding the event without official sponsorship rights. From an enforcement perspective, the key point is that you do not need to use a protected trademark to create risk. In practice, ambush marketing issues often arise less from a single asset and more from how a campaign is executed. This is particularly true where multiple elements are coordinated, amplified, and timed to coincide with the event in a way that increases the likelihood of an inferred association. The analysis is contextual, meaning  enforcement is not limited to obvious trademark use or explicit references. It often extends to coordinated campaigns, visual shorthand, and messaging that invites consumers to “connect the dots” to the tournament. Disclaimers (i.e., “not an official sponsor”) rarely change the outcome if the overall campaign message still points in the opposite direction. For example, in connection with the 2010 World Cup, the South African airline, Kulula, ran a national newspaper advertisement calling itself the “Unofficial Carrier of the You‑Know‑What,” featuring vuvuzelas, soccer balls, and a stadium‑like graphic resembling the newly constructed Cape Town World Cup venue. Although the advertisement avoided the words “World Cup,” “FIFA,” and the official event year, FIFA argued that the timing, imagery, and stadium reference still created an unauthorized commercial association. After receiving a cease‑and‑desist letter, Kulula withdrew the advertisement. By contrast, brands that successfully operate in this space tend to build in deliberate creative distance. Nike’s widely discussed 2012 Olympic campaign featuring athletes competing in cities named “London” outside the United Kingdom is a useful illustration. Nike aggressively timed the campaign to the games, but avoided suggesting an official tie by structuring the campaign to stand on its own conceptually. Marketing teams should remember that if a campaign depends on the audience recognizing an implicit reference to an event like the World Cup, it is more likely to be treated as an attempt to trade on the event’s goodwill. Campaigns rooted in a brand’s story or broader soccer culture that do not rely on proximity to the World Cup for meaning are generally on safer footing. Social Media Moves Faster Than Legal Review Social and influencer marketing present some of the highest risks during global sporting events because they reward speed, and enforcement operates at the same pace. Rights holders actively monitor hashtags referencing the event, real-time commentary tied to matches or results, and reposts of official content or venue imagery. Enforcement in this area has consistently focused on brand activity that attempts to participate in the event conversation without sponsorship rights, even where the underlying relationship (for example, an athlete sponsorship) is legitimate. In the Olympic context, for example, U.S. brands that sponsor individual athletes have been warned not to use event‑specific hashtags, repost official content, or reference results in ways that leverage the Olympics’ commercial platform, including in congratulatory posts. In practice, affiliations and disclosures do not, by themselves, eliminate false endorsement risk in tournament‑adjacent content, particularly where posts are made for commercial purposes from brand‑owned accounts. For World Cup planning, assume reactive content is higher risk. Real‑time posting, trending hashtags, and match‑based commentary are hard to vet under tournament conditions. If your team wants to post in the moment, work from pre‑cleared language and visuals and set up a quick escalation path for edge cases. Sweepstakes and Promotions Carry Hidden Risk Sweepstakes and promotions can also create material risk, particularly when the prize, timing, or theme suggests an “official” relationship with the tournament. In most cases, the issue is not the prize itself, but how the promotion is presented to the public. For example, risk often arises where promotions position the brand as offering access to an “official” event experience, whether through naming, imagery, or surrounding marketing context. Ticket giveaways, watch‑party promotions, travel packages, and “host‑year” collections are common pressure points, particularly when paired with event‑adjacent branding or messaging. In contrast, marketing teams can generally reduce risk by describing their promotions using neutral but accurate “plain-English” wording. Copy that clearly describes what is being offered, while avoiding tournament‑specific terms or imagery that could suggest affiliation, sponsorship, or official status, may help to mitigate enforcement risks. On-the-Ground Campaigns and “Clean Zones” Brand activations in the physical vicinity of major sporting events, such as pop-ups, street teams, and branded installations, are often targets of enforcement during major sporting events. Major events like the World Cup commonly require host cities to establish “clean zones” around venues, fan areas, and transit corridors. These zones restrict unauthorized commercial activity and keep third-party branding out of broadcast television shots.. Local authorities can enforce these rules regardless of whether the marketing use infringes a trademark, and enforcement can be immediate and non-negotiable. Recent U.S. sporting events illustrate how strictly these rules are applied in practice. During the Super Bowl, for example, local authorities have required non‑sponsor businesses operating near stadiums to remove their branding, limit their commercial activity, and even temporarily relocate, all to avoid unsanctioned brand visibility around the event. In these situations, businesses are typically not accused of trademark infringement; instead, event‑specific rules are enforced to protect sponsor exclusivity. For marketers considering pop‑ups or experiential activations, the lesson is to check local ordinances early, map clean-zone boundaries, and assume less flexibility once the tournament begins. If a campaign depends on physical proximity to the event, it may be higher risk. What This Means for Marketing Teams Across all channels, a few patterns consistently show up in enforcement: Plan earlier than you think.  The highest-value legal review happens at the concept stage, when you are naming the campaign, writing the tagline, and selecting visual direction. Be brand-first, not event-first.  Campaigns centered on your brand story are safer than those built around referencing the tournament. Use caution with “wink-wink” creative.  If the idea relies on consumers recognizing an implicit World Cup reference, it is more likely to be challenged. Build for speed, but with guardrails.  Have clear internal processes and pre-approved alternatives ready to go. Treat clean zones with extra caution.  Local authority enforcement on the ground near the venue can be fast and inflexible. A Simple Do / Don’t Framework DO: Focus on soccer broadly, not the tournament specifically Use generic sports themes and original creative Plan social content in advance Pressure-test how the campaign will be perceived, not just what it says DON’T: Reference the “World Cup” (directly or indirectly) in campaign naming Use event-related hashtags or real-time match tie-ins Assume disclaimers will fix a risky concept Launch experiential campaigns near venues without checking restrictions Bottom Line The World Cup creates enormous marketing opportunity, but it also compresses risk into a short, highly visible window. The brands that succeed in this environment are not the ones that push the line the hardest. They are the ones that understand how enforcement works in practice and design campaigns accordingly. With disciplined naming, thoughtful creative, and clear guardrails for execution, non-sponsors can still show up in meaningful ways without giving enforcement teams a reason to reach for the whistle. * * * If you have any questions or would like to discuss this Client Alert, please contact one of the Sullivan lawyers listed above. This Client Alert is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Companies are increasingly turning to artificial intelligence ("AI") platforms to obtain legal information. In the intellectual property context, common uses include freedom-to-operate searches, claims drafting, and assessments of potential patent infringement exposure. A recent decision from the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York calls into question whether documents generated through certain AI platforms are entitled to protection under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. In United States v. Bradley Heppner, Judge Jed S. Rakoff ruled in a criminal proceeding that documents generated through an AI platform were not entitled to protection under either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. In that case, the defendant is alleged to have used a consumer version of Anthropic’s Claude AI to generate documents related to his defense. Heppner’s attorney claimed that those documents were privileged and the Government subsequently filed a motion for a ruling that the documents were not privileged. In granting the government’s motion on February 10, 2026, Judge Rakoff noted that the attorney-client privilege attaches to communications for legal advice between a client and their attorney that are intended to be, and are kept, confidential. Judge Rakoff determined that the AI-generated documents failed to meet the criteria for establishing privilege. First, the Judge pointed out that the AI documents were not communications with counsel, and the AI agent cannot be construed as legal counsel. Second, the communications in the AI-generated documents were not confidential because the communications were with a third party whose privacy policy explicitly states that users consent to Anthropic’s use of inputs and outputs for various purposes. Finally, the Judge ruled that Heppner’s use of AI was not for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Heppner’s attorney suggested that Heppner was using AI for the purpose of communicating with counsel, but the Judge noted that Heppner did not do so at the direction of counsel (which, if he had, might still not have been sufficient to be considered attorney-client communication). Key Takeaways: The use of AI to obtain legal analysis or advice might not be covered under the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrines. That means that there is a risk that AI-generated documents might not be protected from disclosure to an opposing party in litigation. Even the AI queries themselves may not be privileged and may later be construed as damaging admissions. The decision in US v. Heppner is a criminal case and is a decision of a single United States District Court. It appears to be the first decision regarding the use of AI to obtain legal advice, and it is possible that other District Courts or a Court of Appeal could render a different decision. The Heppner case does not specifically address the use of AI in the context of IP litigation, but it is reasonable to assume that the principles applied in Heppner would apply to any privilege contention. However, it is possible that another District Court or an appellate court would rule differently in the context of patent issues. Judge Rakoff noted that the defendant utilized a commercial version of AI. It is possible that an enterprise version would support a stronger expectation of privacy by the user. It is unclear whether the use of AI at the direction of counsel would result in a different decision. What You Should Do: Companies should exercise caution in their use of AI to generate legal advice, documents, and the like. It is best to consult with counsel prior to undertaking the risk of using AI for legal advice. We will post further commentary as this area of the law develops.