A lawsuit between the Chicago Cubs and the owner of a rooftop venue near Wrigley Field raises important questions about the scope of intellectual property rights and the extent to which a property owner can profit from the fact that the property enjoys a natural view of a live event. The central issue is whether someone can legally charge for access to a rooftop that overlooks a baseball game being played in an open-air stadium.

The Cubs have sued Aidan Dunican, who owns Wrigley View Rooftop (at a building adjacent to Wrigley Field with a view of the playing field), for selling tickets to watch games without a license. The team claims the business falsely suggests an affiliation with the Cubs and is profiting unfairly from their live events. The lawsuit includes claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising. It also alleges misappropriation and unjust enrichment, which are now under particular scrutiny in the latest round of filings.

Dunican argues that he is simply using his private property lawfully and that the Cubs cannot control the light, sound, and other elements that naturally extend beyond the stadium. He maintains that since the team chose to operate in a densely populated neighborhood using an open-air design, it cannot now demand exclusive control over what is visible and audible from nearby rooftops.

The case raises two main legal questions. First, whether the sights and sounds of a live game, when experienced outside the stadium, are protected by intellectual property rights in a way that prevents others from charging to observe them. The other is whether selling rooftop access creates an unfair advantage or improper gain at the expense of the team.

The Cubs also raised a trademark claim, which may be a strong one.  If they can show that the rooftop business is (as the Cubs allege) using team names, logos, or imagery in a way that falsely implies a partnership, it would likely be recognized as a trademark violation. The broader claim, however, that the Cubs own the sensory experience of the game once it leaves the stadium, will be far more difficult to establish under current law.

Although the Cubs could argue that this setup involves unauthorized public performance or distribution, those claims are less clear under copyright law. Distribution typically involves providing copies of a protected work, and performance claims usually require an active broadcast or transmission. Courts have not clearly extended those rights to include situations where people simply observe a live event from a location where it is naturally accessible.

On the other hand, the Cubs have previously entered into licensing deals with other rooftop venues, which may support their argument that there is a framework in place for this kind of commercial activity. They would contend that Dunican is avoiding that system and benefiting unfairly.

Ultimately, the court would need to decide whether visibility alone is enough to support an enforceable legal claim. If it reaches that point, the outcome will shed some light on the limits of intellectual property principles and how they apply when intersecting with traditional private property use rights.