Article 77K64 Full details of the Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce steakhouse lawsuit

Full details of the Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce steakhouse lawsuit

by
from on (#77K64)

Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce are preparing for another season together with the Kansas City Chiefs, but they are also facing a lawsuit related to one of their off-the-field ventures.

Mahomes and Kelce are co-founders of a Kansas City steakhouse, 1587 Prime, that has been sued by a sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, for copyright infringement.

Mahomes and Kelce have been named in the complaint filed by 1587 Sneakers. Counsel for the two Chiefs stars are seeking to dismiss all claims asserted against the duo with prejudice, though the case remains ongoing.

Here's everything to know about the lawsuit and what it entails.

Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce trademark lawsuit, explainedThe initial lawsuit

Mahomes and Kelce were named in a lawsuit by 1587 Sneakers alleging trademark infringement on Feb. 17, according to court records. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and claims the duo's Kansas City steakhouse is harming the sneaker company's business.

The restaurant opened on Sept. 17, 2025 and earned its name by combining the jersey numbers of Mahomes (15) and Kelce (87). The suit indicates 1587 Sneakers began selling its product on April 13, 2023 - claiming that they should have first use in this case. The company is named after the year "1587," which marks the year that Asian and Pacific Island natives first arrived in America.

1587 Sneakers didn't apply for the "1587" trademark until Oct. 2025, and the application is still under review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, according to ESPN, adding that the trademark is in the clothing category. That is different than "1587 Prime," which was filed in Dec. 2023 and falls into the bar and restaurant category.

1587 Sneakers' suit alleges that the steakhouse is creating confusion for consumers and many have contacted the company believing it was affiliated with 1587 Prime. The sneaker company also noted they sell their shoes and clothing nationwide - having been featured in The Boston Globe, Teen Vogue, news stations like ABC and NBC as well as "Shark Tank" - meaning they have reached every state.

1587 Sneakers is seeking for 1587 Prime to no longer use the name, stop selling goods with the name on it and to be awarded punitive damages.

Motion to dismiss

Counsel for Mahomes and Kelce filed a requested to dismiss all claims asserted against the duo with prejudice on July 3, according to court records obtained by USA TODAY Sports.

The motion came as Mahomes and Kelce have contended they have no control over the restaurant or ties to New York, where 1587 Sneakers' lawsuit was filed.

1587 Sneakers responds to motion to dismiss

On Aug. 4, 1587 Sneakers filed an opposition to that motion. The company accused Mahomes and Kelce of trying to distance themselves from the restaurant amid the lawsuit despite being "the generative force from which the infringing mark derives its entire identity and market appeal."

"Defendants Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes seek dismissal by recasting themselves as two distant celebrities that are mere promotional 'pretty faces' of the alleged infringing enterprise with no New York ties," the filing reads. "The record shows otherwise.

"As sufficiently alleged in the operative complaint, both Defendants played an active personal role as the 'moving forces' of the at-issue mark as '1587' was approved and constructed from their respective football jersey numbers: 15 and 87."

Prime 1587's official website lists it as being "co-founded by Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce in partnership with Noble 33."

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Full details of the Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce steakhouse lawsuit

External Content
Source RSS or Atom Feed
Feed Location http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/rss.xml
Feed Title
Feed Link https://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/
Feed Copyright Copyright (c) 2026 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Reply 0 comments