From 2004 to 2023, Wrigley View Rooftop had a business arrangement with the Chicago Cubs to share a percentage of their revenue with the team. In 2024, after the deal ended, the Cubs sued Wrigley View Rooftop for misappropriation, unjust enrichment, false advertising, infringement and related claims.
In 2002, the Chicago Cubs sued the companies selling tickets to watch games from their rooftop venues, alleging copyright infringement. Most of them settled out of court.
Eventually, the Ricketts family, the owners of the Cubs, bought most of the rooftop properties. They did not purchase one property: Wrigley View Rooftop, located at 1050 W. Waveland Avenue.
According to Sportico, in a summary judgment motion, the Chicago Cubs have accused the Wrigley View Rooftop company of “parasitic” business practices in their ongoing legal battle.
In a recent filing, the Cubs contend that the argument is simple: Wrigley View Rooftop sells tickets to see Wrigley Field without the Cubs’ consent, which is illegal. The organization notes that the Cubs’ expenditures to host events at Wrigley Field underpin Wrigley View Rooftop’s economic strategy, which focuses on ticket sales and selling food, drinks, and other items to ticket holders.
Additionally, the Cubs contend that Wrigley View Rooftop has utilized the team’s trademarks without authorization, confusing customers about whether the Cubs are selling rooftop seats. The Cubs also say Wrigley View Rooftop has “lied to consumers” by claiming an official affiliation with the team.
The rooftop company claims it isn’t doing anything illegal
Wrigley View Rooftop has countered by claiming that the Chicago Cubs are demanding a property right that the law doesn’t provide: “the right to prohibit people on neighboring private property from witnessing live events that [the Cubs] knowingly and intentionally exhibit in a manner that is visible from such neighboring private property.”
The company says it doesn’t record or replay Cubs games, doesn’t sell tickets to the team, doesn’t provide media permission to cover Cubs games, and doesn’t sell entry to Wrigley Field, so it isn’t “parasitic.” It is merely selling access to a Chicago-licensed rooftop venue on its property.
“Watching is not copying,” Wrigley View Rooftop states. “Seeing is not rebroadcasting. Witnessing is not appropriating. Operating a lawful venue across the street from an open-air stadium is not misappropriation.”
If the judge decides the law clearly favors the Cubs, Wrigley View Rooftop could cease to exist. If the judge decides Wrigley View Rooftop is in the right, there is little more the Cubs can do outside of blocking the view. If the judge decides neither side is clearly in the right, a trial will be ordered to decide the fate of the case.