IP Law Daily, UNFAIR COMPETITION—N.D. Ill.: Chicago Cubs ticket claims against rooftop venue owner proceed, (May 5, 2026)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

The allegations in the lawsuit by the Chicago Cubs baseball team that a neighboring rooftop venue used the team’s “product” of live baseball games to compete against it, while not contributing to the costs of hosting the game, was sufficient to show commercial damage by that use.

The complaint filed by the Major League Baseball team Chicago Cubs against the owners of a rooftop venue across the street from Wrigley Field for selling tickets without permission to customers to view live Cubs games from their rooftop sufficiently stated claims for misappropriation and unjust enrichment, the federal district court in Chicago, Illinois has ruled. While the venue was entitled to enjoy the views around its own property, the team’s allegations indicated that the venue profited from the team’s holding live baseball games for its own commercial benefit. Thus, the rooftop venue’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied (Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC v. Dunican, No. 1:24-cv-05086 (N.D. Ill. May 1, 2026)).

Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC is a Delaware corporation which owns and manages the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball team, as well as Wrigley Field, the ballpark where the Cubs play their home games. The Club spends millions of dollars annually to compensate players and staff and in maintaining the ballpark. It sells tickets to the Cubs home baseball games, concessions, memorabilia, and merchandise as well as entering into licensing agreements with businesses for use of the Cubs live games.

Rooftop by the Firehouse, Inc., founded by Aidan Dunican, operates a venue across the street from Wrigley Field where guests can buy tickets and event packages that include a skydeck with a “birds-eye view of the ballpark,” a clubhouse with multiple TVs, and a balcony overlooking the ballpark. Prior to 2024, the Rooftop held a license from the Club allowing it to sell tickets to access the rooftop bleachers overlooking the ballpark. However, in 2024, the Club informed the Rooftop that it could no longer sell tickets to view Cubs games for the 2024 baseball season. Nevertheless, the Rooftop listed the Cubs schedule on its website and sold tickets to access the rooftop venue.

In June 2024, the Club filed suit against the Rooftop and Dunican, alleging that they engaged in misappropriation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Lanham Act. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the Rooftop and Dunican misappropriated its property right to live Cubs games and profited by selling tickets to view Chicago Cubs baseball games from the rooftop. Before the court was the Rooftop and Dunican’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the misappropriation and unjust enrichment counts.

Sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint adequately states a claim for misappropriation, the court found. To substantiate a claim of misappropriation, a plaintiff must show that: (1) it created a product through extensive time, labor, skill, or money; (2) the defendants used the product in competition with the plaintiff and gained a special advantage since the defendants had no burden of the expense of its development; and (3) the defendant’s use of the plaintiff’s product cause commercial damage to the plaintiff. The argument by the Rooftop and Dunican that the Club does not have a property interest in its “product” – live Cubs games produced at Wrigley Field was rejected. The Club alleged in its complaint that: (1) it “sells the experience of viewing live Cubs baseball as it happens;” (2) it incurs costs approaching a billion dollars to produce Cubs games and events at Wrigley Field; (3) the defendants previously had a license to sell tickets to view Cubs games and events at Wrigley Field and that license was not renewed; (4) the defendants had notice that they had no right to sell tickets to view Cubs games; and (5) the defendants continued to advertise and sell tickets despite not contributing to the costs of hosting the games and managing the ballpark.

While the defendants may be entitled to enjoy the views around their own property, the Club’s allegations indicated that the defendants profit off its product for their own commercial benefit. The complaint stated that the Rooftop sells tickets only when there is a game or event at Wrigley Field and provide refunds to customers when the rooftop’s line of sight of Wrigley Field is affected. It is reasonable to infer that much of the defendants’ profit comes from the experience of watching live games from the rooftop. As a result of the defendants’ practices, the Club alleged economic injury in the form of lost revenue since Cubs fans might purchase tickets to the rooftop to watch baseball games rather than purchasing tickets for admission to Wrigley Field. The Club’s allegations that the defendants used the Club’s product to compete against it and profit from the Club’s efforts and expenditures at no cost to themselves was sufficient to demonstrate commercial damage caused by that use, the court explained.

Additionally, the complaint adequately stated a claim for unjust enrichment. To state a claim for unjust enrichment, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant unjustly retained a benefit to the plaintiff’s detriment and the retention of that benefit “violates the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.” The Club’s allegations established that the defendants made a profit from selling tickets to watch Cubs games from the rooftop, without permission or financial contribution, and those profits were derived entirely from the Club’s efforts in holding live baseball games. The defendants obtained this benefit by diverting revenue from the Club, the court noted.

Finally, in the Answer to the complaint, the Rooftop and Dunican denied many of the facts essential to supporting the Club’s claims and asserted several factual allegation of their own, thereby creating material issues of fact. The Rooftop and Dunican failed to establish that the Club failed to sufficiently plead its misappropriation and unfair enrichment claims and also failed to show the absence of any dispute of material fact such that the Club’s claims could not succeed. Accordingly, the assertions in the Answer precluded judgment on the pleadings, the court concluded.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-05086.

Judge: Coleman, S.

Attorneys: Martin L. Roth (Kirkland & Ellis LLP) for Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC. J. Timothy Cerney (Carroll, Hartigan & Cerney Ltd.) for Aidan Dunican.

Companies: Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC

Cases: Copyright Trademark IllinoisNews