University of Washington School of Law

Streaming the USA 2026 FIFA World Cup: How Tech Innovations Are Shaping the Viewing Experience

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

By: Santi Pedraza Arenas

Introduction

The FIFA World Cup, one of the most-viewed events worldwide, is set to return to American soil in 2026. With matches spanning across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, excitement is already building. While tens of thousands of fans will pack the stadiums from New York to Seattle, millions more will be watching from the comfort of their homes, devices in hand. Because there are only a limited number of in-person tickets and prices are expected to reflect overwhelming demand, most fans will turn to streaming services to catch every moment of the action. This growing reliance on digital broadcasts has been a driving force behind rapid advancements in streaming technology, pushing developers to create more immersive and seamless viewing experiences than ever before. However, these innovations come with legal and regulatory challenges as companies compete to stake their claims in the evolving digital sports media landscape. This blog will explore the technological advancements shaping the World Cup streaming experience and the legal questions that come with them.

Technology That Brings the Stadium to You

In preparation for 2026, tech companies and broadcasters are making bold moves to deliver a seamless, high-impact digital viewing experience. A standout example is Lenovo’s recent partnership with FIFA as the official technology sponsor. This deal is representative of the industry’s pivot toward high-performance streaming experiences. Their involvement goes beyond branding; Lenovo’s hardware, servers, and IT infrastructure will be essential to powering the event’s broadcast backbone, enabling fans around the globe to access ultra-HD streams in 4K and even 8K resolution. More than just delivering clearer video, these streams will feature innovations in real-time overlays, dynamic camera switching, and potentially AI-driven analytics that let viewers interact with the game in ways never before possible.

But these immersive tools go far beyond visual quality. They reflect a growing effort to recreate the social and emotional aspects of live stadium viewing within digital platforms. FIFA is actively exploring “watch together” features that synchronize streams across users in real time, allowing fans to cheer, react, and chat together virtually. These experiences may include live discussion panels, personalized stat overlays, or interactive reaction features that transform passive watching into a shared, social event. However, delivering that level of interactivity introduces not only technical challenges but also complex legal questions. As the line between viewer and participant continues to blur, the legal framework governing digital sports broadcasting is being tested in new and profound ways.

The Legal Pitfalls of the Streaming Gold Rush 

Behind every technological innovation in streaming lies a competitive race for control over digital rights. Major tech firms and media companies are aggressively pursuing exclusive deals, hoping to capture massive viewership and the accompanying revenue. But exclusivity can come at a price. In response to  Disney, Fox, and Warner Bros.’ proposal of a joint streaming service called Venu Sports, rival companies like FuboTV quickly responded by filing antitrust claims, arguing that the joint venture would unfairly limit competition by locking out smaller players. The backlash was swift and effective, and the resulting legal pressure led to the shelving of the Venu Sports project entirely. Legally, this wasn’t just a business dispute; it raised serious and unresolved questions about what constitutes fair competition in the modern streaming ecosystem. As digital platforms become the new stadiums, the rules that govern them are still being written.

At the same time, the legal challenges do not stop with streaming rights alone. The nature of the content being streamed is evolving, bringing new legal complications. Today’s sports broadcasts are enhanced by real-time data: player tracking, ball trajectory, biometric readings, and even environmental sensor inputs. This data is not simply gathered and stored, it’s transformed into live, interactive content. That transformation raises crucial legal questions: Is the data proprietary? If so, who owns the data? Is it the league, the broadcaster, the player, or the technology provider? These questions are no longer theoretical. They touch on active issues in data privacy law, intellectual property, and even athletes’ rights. For instance, biometric data collected during a match could be subject to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), even if the player is performing in a U.S. stadium like Lumen Field. This could restrict the interactive streams designed for the fans, but it would also protect the rights of players to benefit from their own data. AI-generated features derived from that data, such as predictive models or auto-generated highlight reels, complicate things further by challenging traditional copyright frameworks since the content is synthesized rather than authored.

Conclusion:

Looking ahead, the future of sports streaming will hinge on how well the industry balances bold innovation with regulatory responsibility. Technologies like augmented reality, virtual reality, and sophisticated AI analytics are likely to become core elements of the viewing experience. As that happens, stakeholders such as tech firms, broadcasters, leagues, and lawmakers will need to collaborate more closely to shape legal structures that support innovation without compromising individual rights. Global regulatory trends, from GDPR in Europe to potential new federal data laws in the United States, will likely steer this conversation. These regulations are expected to clarify what qualifies as “sensitive data,” reinforce consent standards, and ensure transparency in how user and player data are collected and used.

In conclusion, the 2026 FIFA World Cup will not only be a showcase of athletic excellence but also a critical testing ground for the next generation of digital media innovations. The World Cup will invite all stakeholders to engage in an ongoing dialogue about fairness, privacy, and the future of sports entertainment. As we stand on the cusp of this new era, the key challenge will be to harness the power of technology in a manner that elevates the fan experience, drives positive innovation, and upholds the legal and ethical standards necessary to protect both individual rights and the integrity of the game.

#WJLTA #UWLAW #FIFAWorldCup #EntertainmentLaw

Exploring the Legal Implications of Online Therapy with BetterHelp

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Alex Green on Pexels.com

By: Jonah Haseley

As discussing mental health has become more normalized, advertisements for mental health apps like Better Help have become ubiquitous. BetterHelp spent over $100,000,000 on advertising its services in 2023 and has over 400,000 users as of the fourth quarter of 2024. With its growing societal footprint, BetterHelp has also faced growing legal scrutiny, particularly regarding privacy concerns.

Privacy Concerns and FTC Investigation

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found in a 2023 investigation that BetterHelp allegedly shared sensitive patient information with advertisers—despite telling its users that it would never do that. BetterHelp settled with the FTC, but the settlement only applies to users who signed up between 2017 and 2020. Though the settlement was worth 7.8 million dollars, each class member was only entitled to $10. The company did not admit to wrongdoing and maintains that it never shared sensitive patient data with advertisers.

In addition to the FTC investigation, BetterHelp has also been subject to multiple class action lawsuits. These lawsuits echo the FTC’s allegations of deceptive privacy practices, and the cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  

Industry Problems

The problem with telehealth data privacy is not limited to BetterHelp. A recent study evaluated 50 telehealth startups and found that 49 of them shared sensitive patient data with big tech companies like Google and Facebook. This data includes data like names and emails addresses, but also prescriptions and answers to medical intake forms.

Governing Laws

With all of these issues in the industry, it is worth considering what laws constrain companies like BetterHelp. Unsurprisingly, the FTC considered BetterHelp’s representation that it was HIPPA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) compliant to be a deceptive trade practice. One of BetterHealth’s responses was that it recently received its HITRUST (Health Information Trust Alliance) certification. One could forgive a consumer for being confused by these acronyms. HITRUST is not a law – it is a cybersecurity framework adopted by private organizations. HIPPA is a federal statute about protecting patient privacy. While HIPPA is binding, it does not include a private cause of action, which would allow patients harmed by the unlawful release of their information to sue under HIPPA. But, alternatives to a private cause of action exist. One option is to file a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (DHHS OCR). However, the White House has been rapidly dismantling civil rights offices throughout the federal government, so it is unclear whether federal investigation will remain a viable option. These closures are not limited to civil rights offices either. For example, the White House recently closed the entire Seattle Regional Office of the DHHS. Without a private cause of action and with administrative remedies threatened, consumers face increasing risks with their health data.

Potential Benefits of Telehealth While the implications of tech companies using confidential information obtained from therapy to target advertisements are terrifying, BetterHelp makes its case to the public that its service is a social good. The company argues that online therapy increases access for those in rural areas and makes treatment more financially accessible. Assuming the company is correct, the alternative to telehealth for some may be no treatment at all, which for those in need is not much of a choice. The status quo is caused by the failure of the federal government to meaningfully regulate the industry. While governmental regulation may not ultimately be feasible, a more realistic approach would be to provide consumers with a legal remedy for misuse of their data, to incentivize the industry to change its behavior.

#BetterHelp #telehealth #therapy

Marks Madness: University (Basketball) Trademarks and TV

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by freestocks.org on Pexels.com

By: Angela Chung

Universities may be unhappy with how their brands are presented in television shows, but comparison and commentary does not necessarily produce consumer confusion. Where trademark law falls short, are there other legal avenues for universities to distance their marks from uses that are inconsistent with their values? 

Duke University recently criticized The White Lotus for depicting characters wearing Duke apparel in scenes involving suicidal ideation. Memes sprouting from these scenes in reference to Duke’s March Madness progression (and the later Final Four finish) prompted an official reply that the imagery “mistakenly suggests an endorsement or affiliation” with the show’s themes. This comes not long after Pepperdine University sued Netflix and Warner Bros. Entertainment for using “Waves” athletic branding in Mindy Kaling’s new show, Running Point. Pepperdine similarly asserted that the show’s depictions of identifiable branding created a false sense of endorsement by Pepperdine of the show’s suggestive themes, which are inconsistent with the university’s Christian values.

TV Does Not Dilute TMs

Trademark law is, at its core, intended to prevent consumer confusion. Facilitating distinctions and siloing off the rights to marks helps consumers and companies associate brand logos with particular values. For example, an Apple logo creates expectations of  sleek aesthetics and user interface while the Gucci logo communicates high status and product quality. When certain marks—like Apple or Gucci—are extremely well known, trademark law extends further protections for said ‘famous’ marks when they get linked to unsavory subject matter. This is called trademark dilution. Dilution can occur through blurring (chipping away at the distinction between brands in a way that harms brand reputation) or tarnishment (lowering brand reputation through association with subject matter or product quality in tension with actual values of mark owner). For instance, if a knockoff iPhone was being sold with glitchy and poor functionality, Apple may have a trademark dilution claim on the grounds that  the knockoff harms Apple’s reputation for creating smooth and reliable smartphones. 

At first glance, both universities appear to have an argument for trademark dilution, particularly via tarnishment. Associating university brand imagery with unsavory images that are contrary to university values could arguably imply inaccurate ideas about both schools. But the foundational goal of trademark law to prevent consumer confusion limits the protections these universities may seek. Context matters—seeing a particular university brand associated with products or services is very different from seeing that same brand within an expressive work on TV. 

Ultimately, viewers are unlikely to believe that university logos in creative works—like a TV show—indicate that the universities actually endorse ideas from the show itself. In fact, university branding can be a tool to express new commentary or criticism in themes across education, class, athletics, and more. Using a mark in a creative work fundamentally changes the way potential consumers view its associated ideas. Trademarks can therefore become independent vessels for communicating artistic expression, rather than identifiers of potential product or service origins.

Creative Expression > Commercial Identity

Trademark expressions in creative works are therefore explicitly protected through fair use exceptions to trademark infringement and dilution claims. The two-prong test from Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) is used to determine if a trademark falls under fair use in a creative work. Under the Rogers test, courts assess if the use of a trademark (1) has artistic merit and (2) explicitly misleads a viewer as to the source of a work. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A), if the mark has some artistic merit and does not mislead a user to believe the creative work originates from the trademark owner, there is no cause of action for trademark infringement. Ultimately, the Rogers test seeks to distinguish artistic expression from commercial products and protect free speech. Recent Supreme Court rulings have affirmed strong support for use of trademarks in creative / artistic works without permission from the mark owners.

Pepperdine’s temporary restraining order on Netflix was therefore denied because Netflix’s use of the Waves’ marks “does not explicitly mislead consumers as to the source of the work.” And Duke would not have a strong claim for trademark dilution because trademarks do “not give one control over how others reference one’s brand, including in critical ways.” (Duke Says ‘White Lotus’ Went ‘Too Far’ With School References – The New York Times). Under the Rogers test, the Duke logo likely has artistic merit for shaping out characters of the show, and does not explicitly mislead viewers into thinking The White Lotus is endorsed or produced by Duke. 

Ultimately, trademark laws protect companies where the use of their marks by others affect their commercial reputation and recognizability in the market. Trademarks do not protect brands from being referenced, criticized, or used as part of cultural /creative expression. So where can universities go from here if they sincerely wish to prevent the use of their logo in these shows? Does copyright or defamation law provide avenues for action?  

Probably not. 

Legal Limits of Brand Protection

Trademark law protects words, phrases, or designs used to identify goods and services. In order to help consumers identify the source of goods and services, mark owners are empowered to prevent others from using their marks without permission. Copyright law, on the other hand, prevents people from copying or reproducing a creative work without permission from the copyright holder. For brands, copyright law would only extend protections to creative elements of brand design, such as a logo illustration. But words, phrases, and common combinations of design are not protected because doing so would stump creativity. Because of this, copyright law would not block others from using the words “Waves” or “Duke,” for example.

A particular illustration of Duke’s mascot could be granted protections when reproduced or used in another copyrightable work, but protections over logo elements (like the combination of font styles with certain colors) would be very thin at best. In the case of Pepperdine, courts would be unlikely to prevent others from using a general combination of blue and orange with the word “Waves.” Even if Pepperdine could raise a claim for copyright infringement of their Waves logo imagery by showing substantial similarity between the show’s logo with Pepperdine’s , it probably would not entirely stop Running Point from using various brand design elements. Copyright therefore falls short of the more robust protections provided by trademark law over brand names and imagery. 

Defamation suits would not survive either. A defamation prima facie case requires a false statement about the defendant purporting to be fact and proof of damages or harm caused to the reputation of the defendant. Here, associating university brands with controversial subject matter in explicitly fictional shows does not qualify as false statements about those universities. Having a character wear a Duke sweater does not mean The White Lotus is factually stating that Duke supports or exacerbates suicide amongst its students or alum. In addition, neither Duke nor Pepperdine would likely be able to show actual damages or harm to their reputation as a result of their brand being used. While Pepperdine may dislike allusions to their sports logos alongside inappropriate scenes in Running Point, there is no evidence that the show’s airing reduced enrollment or otherwise affected the university’s reputation or funding. 

Legal action is generally sought in order to prevent or seek redress for harm. While unauthorized presentations of university brand logos in fictional shows may be strongly disliked by the respective universities,  it does not necessarily amount to harm under the law.  Further, the use does not harm viewers since there is no evidence that the use of university logos creates confusion about the show’s origins or misleads viewers into believing they are consuming something else. Creative contexts provide new meaning to protected marks outside of commercial identification, and fair use exceptions prioritize these expressive means. For now, where trademark law does not provide protections for distasteful themes in association with brand presentation, universities may just have to accept the discourse as is.

Studio Ghibli-Style AI Images and the Legal Questions They Raise

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by FOX ^.u11bd.^= u222b on Pexels.com

By: Esha Kher

In recent weeks, AI-generated images mimicking the iconic look of Studio Ghibli have gone viral across platforms like X and Instagram, sparking controversy. Selfies, family portraits, and memes have been transformed into soft, pastel-hued depictions that echo the dreamlike aesthetic of the legendary Japanese animation studio. Founded in 1985 by Hayao Miyazaki, Isao Takahata, and Toshio Suzuki, Studio Ghibli is renowned for its rich storytelling and distinctive, heartwarming visual style—now replicated widely through AI.

The recent trend in which users generate AI images using the latest version of OpenAI’s GPT-4o, mimicking Studio Ghibli’s aesthetic, has gained immense traction on social media, even causing server overloads. This emerging trend has sparked considerable debate, dividing public opinion into two camps: AI enthusiasts and staunch critics of AI-generated art. Supporters view the phenomenon as a tribute to Studio Ghibli’s influence and a democratization of creative tools. Critics, however, find this trend to be both a hollow and inauthentic imitation of Hayao Miyazaki’s distinct style—devoid of creative soul or artistic merit. An old clip of Miyazaki himself resurfaced during the controversy, in which he vehemently denounced AI-generated imagery as “an insult to life itself”. 

Regardless of one’s stance on the debate, the trend raises important legal questions. Do AI models rely on copyrighted material to replicate distinct visual styles? And when these outputs resemble a studio’s recognizable aesthetic, like that of Studio Ghibli, do they risk infringing on copyright or trademark protections?

How ChatGPT Generates “Stylized” Images

GPT-4o uses an autoregressive algorithm to generate images by breaking them down into visual “tokens,” which function like words in a sentence. Just as ChatGPT predicts the most likely sequence of words in a sentence, generative image models predict and assemble these visual tokens to form coherent images. Through training on large datasets of images and text, the model learns to associate certain patterns, like color palettes or brushstrokes, with specific words, encoding them as abstract “styles” within its neural network. So when a user references “Studio Ghibli,” the model doesn’t retrieve frames from actual films but instead draws on a learned mathematical representation of the studio’s aesthetic (otherwise known as “Ghibli-ness”). This ability to isolate and apply visual features across new images is known as a “style engine”. 

Copyright Law Implications 

The use of style engines has raised entirely new questions about copyright law and creative ownership. U.S. copyright law doesn’t protect certain artistic styles, the law only protects the unique ways those styles are expressed or, in other words, original works of authorship. 

However, legal experts caution that this distinction may not be sufficient. While “style” in the abstract is not copyrightable, what people casually refer to as “style” may include recognizable, discrete elements of a work of art. Therefore, the blanket statement that an artistic style isn’t protectable under copyright law may not be absolute. Courts may still find infringement if generated images include elements that are original, expressive, and substantially similar to the copyrighted works.

This legal ambiguity is at the heart of Andersen v. Stability AI, a landmark lawsuit filed in 2022 by three visual artists against AI companies Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt. The artists allege that these companies used their copyrighted artworks without consent to train AI models like Stable Diffusion, which can generate images that imitate their distinctive styles. The plaintiffs argue that such outputs constitute derivative works, and even if the results aren’t direct copies, the unauthorized use of their works in training data alone may amount to copyright infringement. Similar concerns have surfaced in other lawsuits, including Huckabee v. Meta and Millette v. Nvidia, where creators claim that their content was scrapped and repurposed by generative AI platforms, raising serious questions about how copyright applies in the context of machine learning.

Further, there is growing concern that OpenAI may have used Studio Ghibli’s films and artwork to train its generative image model without prior consent from the animation studio. This could constitute copyright infringement if the works were repurposed in a way that exceeds the scope of what is allowed under the fair use doctrine. The fair use doctrine permits the use of copyrighted material for specific purposes, such as academic research or the creation of an entirely new invention. OpenAI maintains that training its models is fair use under copyright law, but this defense is largely untested. 

Trademark Law Implications

Beyond copyright law, Studio Ghibli could assert that OpenAI’s generation of “Ghibli-style” images infringes upon its trademark rights under the Lanham Act. While an animation style—such as Studio Ghibli’s distinctive visual aesthetic—is not independently protected by trademark law and does not trigger the traditional “likelihood of confusion” test used in trademark infringement claims, other aspects of trademark law may still apply. 

When there is no registered trademark involved, Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) provides broader protection by prohibiting false endorsement, sponsorship, or affiliation. Under this provision, a claim can arise when: (1) a defendant uses elements closely associated with a person or brand, such as names, visual likenesses, or identifying characteristics, and (2) this use creates a false impression in the minds of consumers that there is a connection, endorsement, or affiliation with the original brand. 

In this context, while Studio Ghibli may not have a registered trademark on its animation “style” per se, OpenAI’s promotion of “Ghiblification” experiments—along with OpenAI employees sharing Ghibli-style portraits of themselves on social media—could potentially give rise to a false endorsement claim under § 43(a). This is especially true if such references imply to the public that Studio Ghibli has authorized or collaborated with OpenAI in developing these tools. Even allowing prompts such as “in the style of Studio Ghibli” could lead consumers to mistakenly believe that Studio Ghibli has endorsed or is affiliated with the image generation process. While this may not amount to traditional trademark infringement, it opens the door to a false association claim under the broader protections of the Lanham Act. 

Conclusion

The rise of AI-generated art in the style of Studio Ghibli underscores the growing legal uncertainty surrounding copyright and trademark protections.​ As of now, Studio Ghibli has not initiated any legal action against OpenAI regarding the AI-generated images mimicking its distinctive animation style. Nonetheless, there might be grounds to pursue action under U.S. law. While U.S. copyright law does not formally protect artistic styles, the line becomes blurry when AI outputs closely resemble original works in expression and substance. At the same time, Studio Ghibli may have a claim under trademark law, particularly if the AI-generated images create consumer confusion or falsely present an endorsement by the studio. By capitalizing on Ghibli’s recognizable aesthetic, OpenAI risks infringing on the studio’s brand and artistic reputation. These unresolved legal questions underscore the need for updated legal frameworks that account for how AI systems produce and distribute creative content without prior consent from creators.

Can Torpedo Bats Be Patented?

/ Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts / Leave a comment
Photo by Tim Eiden on Pexels.com

By: Evan Stewart

Introduction of Torpedo Bats 

On March 29th, the New Yankees beat the Milwaukee Brewers 20-9, hitting a franchise record nine home runs, including three home runs on the first three pitches of the game. However, the story that took the baseball world by storm was not the franchise’s single-game home-run record, or the three-game sweep in which the Yankees hit 15 home runs and scored 36 runs. Instead, the national spotlight was on the new bowling-pin shaped bats that several of the Yankees players were using. These bats, dubbed “torpedo bats” have dominated baseball news for the first two weeks of the season, and are likely to impact the intellectual property world as well.

What Are Torpedo Bats

Torpedo bats differ from regular bats because the part of the bat with the widest diameter is lower on the bat. The lower sweet spot is meant to distribute the most mass of the bat to the “sweet spot”. The rationale for this change was very simple: put more wood in the area where the ball usually hits the bat. In the words of MIT physicist Dr. David Pritchard, “When you look at the design of a classic baseball bat, the physics just don’t add up. When the ball comes in and hits the sweet spot, it bends the bat so some of the energy goes into bending the bat.” With more wood in the sweet spot, there will be less energy lost by the bat bending back.

Who Created the Torpedo Bat

Credit for the creation of the torpedo bat goes to another MIT physicist turned baseball coach, Aaron Leanhardt. Leanhardt is currently a field coordinator for the Miami Marlins but previously worked as a Minor League hitting coordinator for the Yankees. Before beginning his career as a coach, Leanhardt earned a PhD in physics from MIT and was a physics professor at the University of Michigan. 

Leanhardt first began designing and testing the torpedo bat while working for the Yankees. In 2024, he first introduced the torpedo bat design to some Yankees players, including star hitter Giancarlo Stanton. There are even pictures of Stanton using a torpedo bat in the 2024 World Series. However, it was not until the opening weekend of the 2025 season, following the Yankees 3-game drubbing of the Milwaukee Brewers, when social media caught wind of the torpedo bats, and their popularity began to soar.

In the two weeks following the introduction of torpedo bats to the mainstream, baseball bat companies received thousands of preorders for torpedo bats. Two notable bat companies, Marucci and Victus, had models of the bats on their websites within a few days, trying to capitalize on the newest trend and had record sales. 

The requests for torpedo bats are also coming from MLB teams themselves. Hillerich & Bradsby, the company that is credited for creating the Yankees’ torpedo bats, received an influx of orders from MLB teams directly asking for torpedo bat models. Within a few days, there were MLB players across the league using torpedo bats, and it will be interesting to see if their popularity continues to grow among players.

Can Torpedo Bats Be Patented

Whenever there is a popular new invention, one of the first questions is whether it is eligible to receive patent protection. Patents offer inventors “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” their invention in the United States. The two main types of patents available to inventors are utility patents and design patents. Utility patents are granted to inventors of new and useful processes or machines. Design patents are granted to inventors of new, original, and ornamental designs for an article of manufacturing. 

Although the general shape of baseball bats has stayed nearly the same for over 100 years, there have been some modifications that have received patents. The first, and goofiest, example of these was the banana bat. Banana bats, which had a curved barrel, received a patent in 1890, despite not catching on in professional baseball (for obvious reasons).

A modern example of a bat modification that received a patent is the “axe handle” bat. Axe bats, which grew in popularity around 2015, featured a bat handle that resembled an axe handle instead of the rounded handle that is usually used on a baseball bat. Axe bats received a design patent in 2013, as an ornamental change to the traditional baseball bat. Today, “axe bats” are sold exclusively by Baden Sports, but the company does license the axe handle design to other bat companies.

Based on the axe bat precedent, it seems like torpedo bats could eventually receive a design patent. Interestingly, Bob Hillercih, the vice president of the aforementioned bat manufacturer Hillerich & Bradley, does not believe that torpedo bats are eligible for a patent because the changed design for the bat is just a change in the shape. 

However, based on the description of design patents, this does not seem to be true. 

There are two factors in determining whether a design qualifies for a design patent. First, the design must be an integral aspect of the product that cannot be separated. The difference in barrel placement is the integral aspect of the design of torpedo bat, so it appears that this element would be met. Next, the design must have no bearing on the item’s functionality. The torpedo bat design would likely meet this element, because the new design does not alter the  baseball bat’s functionality. Rather, the torpedo bat just changes the amount of wood at the point of contact. Although some Yankee players had early success with the torpedo bats, it does not, on its own, make it easier to hit home runs. Torpedo bats are used just like regular baseball bats, the only difference is that it has a unique ornamentation with the location of the largest part of the ball being moved. 

Design patents also require that the new patent not be obviously derived or resembling other designs. While there may be an argument that the torpedo bat resembles other bats, the same argument could have been used for the axe bat handle resembling a baseball bat handle or an axe handle. When viewing all of these elements, and comparing torpedo bats to the patent that the axe handle received, there is a possibility that torpedo bats could receive a design patent, if Leanhardt chooses to do so. 

Conclusion

Time will tell if torpedo bats are the next big thing in baseball, or if they are just another banana bat. While more players have begun using them, other players tried them but returned to their old bats or refused to use them altogether. Regardless of their long-term impact on baseball, it will be very interesting to track whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office determines that torpedo bats can be patented. While historical precedent makes it seem like torpedo design can be patented, there seem to be concerns from people in the bat manufacturing business, who also may not want the bat design to be patented so they do not have to license the design to use it.