that one of its requirements was that the host city regulate ambush marketing.
The NFL requiredthe host city to provide a “clean zone” of (1) a one-mile radius around the stadium and area airportsand (2) a six-block radius around the NFL’s headquarters hotel and sites holding NFL activities suchas “the NFL Experience.” The NFL stated that if the city awarded Super Bowl XLV could not enactambush-marketing provisions, the host city’s Super-Bowl committee would have to pay the NFL$1,000,000.In May 2007, the NFL accepted the Bidding Committee’s offer for Super Bowl XLV to beheld at Cowboys Stadium in Arlington. The Bidding Committee accordingly became the HostCommittee. The NFL-Cowboys Defendants and the Host Committee “played an integral role incoordinating [Arlington’s] implementation” of an ambush-marketing ordinance. (2
Am. Compl.11 at ¶ 4.21.) On December 7, 2010, Arlington passed an ordinance temporarily prohibiting certaincommercial activities within a protected area around Cowboys Stadium beginning January 23, 2011,through February 6, 2011: “Outdoor advertising displays (including but not limited to portablesigns, flags, banners, video screens, cold air balloons, electronic message boards, nighttimeprojections of commercial messages, inflatables and building wraps) visible from any public streetshall be prohibited.” Arlington, Tex. Ordinance 10-095 (Dec. 7, 2010). (Arlington App. 3.) Theordinance also prohibited “outdoor festivals.”
(Arlington App. 3.) Violations of the ordinancewere characterized as misdemeanors, punishable by a fine not to exceed $500.
(Arlington App.3.) The ordinance did not expressly exempt NFL sponsors from its enforcement.
To enforce theordinance, the NFL hired private security officers to police ambush marketing, and Arlington
Plaintiff Eric Williams defines ambush marketing as “misleading advertising that attempts to create anassociation between the advertiser and a major sporting event and thereby deprives official sponsors of commercial valuereceived from their sponsorship.” (2
Am. Compl. 6 at ¶ 4.8.)
Williams alleges that NFL sponsors were permitted to engage in activities that were forbidden by theordinance. (2
Am. Compl. 11 at ¶ 4.21.)
Case 4:11-cv-00093-Y Document 54 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 15 PageID 470