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.

Co-authored by Michael Palmisciano, Partner; Laura Christeson, Associate; and Owen Feig, Summer Associate Since generative AI began its rapid ascent in 2022, the creative, tech and legal industries have grappled with a fundamental question: does using copyrighted works to train AI models violate the rights of creators, or does it fall within the bounds of fair use? The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California recently weighed in on this issue in two closely watched cases involving the use of copyrighted books to train large language models (“LLMs”). In both cases, the court granted the defendant AI companies a limited victory, finding that the use of the plaintiffs’ books was transformative. This is typically the most crucial (and often determinative) element in the fair use analysis. But the rulings came with caveats. In one case, the court left open the possibility of infringement where pirated works were used. In the other case, the judge effectively outlined a stronger argument for future plaintiffs focused on the market harm caused by the outputs of this use. These rulings underscore that while courts may view AI training as transformative, companies must proceed cautiously or risk significant liability. Bartz v. Anthropic On June 23, 2025, in Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, the court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Anthropic, finding that its use of purchased books to train its large language model, Claude, was transformative and qualified as fair use. However, the court declined to rule on whether the use of pirated books that were also part of Anthropic’s training data was lawful, leaving that issue for trial. The plaintiffs, a group of authors, alleged that Anthropic had infringed their copyrights by using their books without authorization to train its AI systems. According to the complaint, Anthropic had both pirated millions of books from online sources and purchased physical books in bulk, which it then disassembled and digitized. The resulting digital library was used to train Claude on a subset of the collected content. The court evaluated these claims under the four-factor fair use test: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is transformative; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and (4) the effect of the use on the market for the original. In response to the authors’ claim that Claude’s “memorization” of their works was not transformative, the court analogized the process to a human learning from reading literary works. In the same way that humans internalize what they read and generate thoughts based on what they have learned, the AI system is learning from what it “reads” in the LLM database and sufficiently transforms the works into a new product when it generates outputs. As for Anthropic’s digitization of the books into its LLM database, the court separated its analysis between the purchased and pirated books. For the purchased books, the court found that merely converting physical copies into digital form did not infringe copyright, citing precedent that allows for format shifting when the purchaser owns the copy. In contrast, the court ruled that the use of pirated books may constitute infringement. Because the works were illegally obtained and harmed the authors by displacing sales, copy for copy, this use could not be excused as fair use. The fact that Anthropic later purchased copies of the same books did not absolve it from liability for infringement, though it may lessen potential damages. The issue of whether this use infringed the authors’ copyrights will proceed to trial. Kadrey v. Meta On June 25, 2025, in Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., the same district court ruled on cross-motions for partial summary judgment that Meta’s use of copyrighted material to train its AI was transformative and fair use. Yet, the court emphasized that had the plaintiffs shown sufficient evidence of market harm or dilution—considerations under the fourth factor of the fair use test—the decision could have easily gone the other way. In this case, thirteen authors, including Sarah Silverman and Ta-Nehisi Coates, alleged that Meta had violated their copyrights when it downloaded their books and used them to train Meta’s LLM, alliteratively called Llama. As in Bartz, the court recognized that training LLMs to perform diverse functions is a highly transformative use of copyrighted works. However, the judge in Kadrey placed greater weight on the fourth factor (market impact) and criticized the Bartz court for “blowing off” this piece of the analysis. The plaintiffs brought two specific arguments regarding market harm. The first was that Meta’s AI models could reproduce small pieces of their copyrighted works. The second was that Meta’s use of unauthorized copies of the works reduced the authors’ ability to license their works to Meta for this purpose. The court rejected both arguments, finding that reproduction of small pieces of the works was too insignificant to cause harm, and that the loss of hypothetical licensing revenue was not legally cognizable in a case like this where works were used for a transformative purpose. In an interesting turn, the judge suggested that a more compelling theory of market harm might lie in the outputs of the AI. If Llama, trained on the authors’ copyrighted works, can instantaneously generate competing works, it could flood the market with AI-generated content. This could dilute the market for human-authored works and undermine the incentive to create, which copyright law is designed to protect. But since the plaintiffs here did not make this argument, the judge ruled for Meta. Comments Although these decisions are short-term victories for the defendant AI companies, the long-term implications are far from clear. The opinions were narrowly tailored and heavily fact-dependent, and each specifically noted that it should not be interpreted as blanket support for LLMs. The judges agreed that the use of copyrighted works to train the LLMs was transformative, but they also recognized that this factor is not necessarily determinative of fair use. In cases where the input works are pirated or there is substantial evidence of market dilution, plaintiffs may have the upper hand. In the short time since these cases were decided, several authors came together to sue OpenAI and Microsoft in the Northern District of California in a class action to protect their own copyrights and those of other authors whose works were used by the defendants. Class actions elevate the risk for companies that engage in piracy or fail to purchase licensing rights from copyright holders. The downside risk for AI companies that get it wrong is potentially astronomical. With millions of copyrighted inputs, damages awards—including, in cases of willful infringement, up to $150,000 in statutory damages per work—could accumulate quickly. In the wake of these rulings, and despite the courts’ agreement about the transformative nature of the use, we anticipate a continued trend of AI companies licensing content from publishers and creators for training purposes to insulate against liability. Over the next several years, we expect many of these decisions to be appealed, and ultimately for the U.S. Supreme Court to provide much needed clarity. The Bartz and Kadrey decisions are only the prologue to a much longer copyright and AI litigation story. *** If you have any questions or would like to discuss this Client Alert, please contact one of the Sullivan lawyers listed above.