The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a dispute between Roberto Clemente's sons against Puerto Rico over the use of the baseball legend's image and name on commemorative license plates and registration tags released in 2022 and discontinued that same year.
The appeal was by Clemente's sons, Roberto Clemente Jr., Luis Roberto Clemente and Roberto Enrique Clemente, against the Puerto Rico government, claiming that the use of the Hall of Famer's unauthorized likeness, which generated $15 million for Puerto Rico, breached constitutional protections in the Fifth Amendment against a government taking of private property by seizing trademark rights.
The lawsuit, Clemente Properties v. Pierluisi-Urrutia, asked the courts to halt all future use of Clemente's image on plates and tags while seeking $45 million in damages alongside $3.15 million in compensation for trademark infringement.
"A Supreme Court decision in favor of the Clementes would have not only vindicated the rights of Roberto Clemente's family, but would have also strengthened constitutional protections for name, image, and likeness for athletes across the country," Wen Fa, an attorney for the sons, told ESPN in a statement. "Although we are disappointed by the Court's decision not to hear the important issues presented by our petition, we look forward to litigating the remaining claims in the trial court."
Born in Carolina, Puerto Rico, Roberto Clemente played 18 seasons in right field for the Pittsburgh Pirates, from 1955 to 1972.
He was a 15-time All-Star and two-time World Series champion. He died at age 38 in a 1972 airplane crash while delivering humanitarian aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua. He was inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in 1973.
The lawsuit was dismissed by San Juan U.S. District Judge Gina Méndez-Miró, and the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially upheld that decision, dismissing the argument that Puerto Rico's use of the trademarks amounted to an unconstitutional taking.
In a filing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the sons said that the lower courts improperly concluded that the Fifth Amendment does not automatically apply to intangible property such as trademarks.
"Left unanswered, the 1st Circuit's ruling would invite government to take trademarks on demand -- checked only by a multi-factor balancing test that allows government to destroy much in value and pay nothing in return," they wrote.
