Judge allows DraftKings to use March Madness terms for now
- US District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied the NCAA’s request for a temporary restraining order against DraftKings on 27 March.
- The judge found the NCAA failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, noting DraftKings has used the contested terms for more than five years without legal challenge.
- The case remains active in the Southern District of Indiana, and the threat of a permanent injunction has not been removed.
A federal judge has denied the NCAA’s request to immediately bar DraftKings from using its most recognisable tournament trademarks in sports betting promotions.
US District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt issued the ruling on 27 March, finding the NCAA did not meet the legal threshold required to obtain a temporary restraining order.
DraftKings can continue using “March Madness,” “Final Four,” “Elite Eight,” and “Sweet Sixteen” through the remainder of the 2026 men’s and women’s basketball tournaments.
The NCAA filed its trademark infringement complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on 20 March, seeking to prevent DraftKings from using the terms across its betting platforms, promotional campaigns, and marketing materials. It was the first formal legal action the governing body had taken against a major sportsbook.
How the dispute developed
The conflict had been building for weeks before the formal lawsuit. On 3 March, the NCAA sent a cease-and-desist letter demanding DraftKings halt all use of the trademarked terms. DraftKings responded on 10 March, removing certain pages that referenced “March Madness” and asserting fair use.
The NCAA notified the court on 17 March that it believed DraftKings remained in breach, leading to the formal complaint three days later.
To obtain a temporary restraining order (TRO), the NCAA was required to satisfy four legal conditions, one of which is demonstrating irreparable harm without immediate relief. Pratt found the association met three of the four conditions but fell short on harm.
The deciding factor was timing. DraftKings had used the contested terminology for more than five years without legal challenge from the NCAA, and the court found that delay substantially undermined the claim of urgency.
Pratt wrote:
“The NCAA has made the requisite showing that three of the four elements necessary for a TRO exists, but given the exacting standard required for a temporary restraining order, they have not shown irreparable harm. With further discovery the NCAA may be able to show they are entitled to a preliminary or permanent injunction, and those claims remain pending.”
Substance of the ruling
The decision was not a vindication of DraftKings’ position. Pratt agreed with the NCAA on several substantive points, accepting that DraftKings had no practical need to use the trademarked terms and rejecting the operator’s fair use argument.
She noted that rival platforms including Kalshi had adopted non-trademarked descriptions such as “Men’s Round of 16 Qualifiers” in place of “Sweet 16,” demonstrating the terms were not operationally necessary.
As of 23 March, most other major sportsbooks had already complied with NCAA requests. FanDuel was labelling events as “NCAA Basketball Mens Games,” BetMGM had adopted “Men’s March Matchups,” and theScore Bet displayed “NCAAB Championship 2026.”
DraftKings was the notable exception in continuing to use the trademarked phrases.
The NCAA expressed confidence following the ruling. A spokesperson said the association is grateful for the court’s recognition that it is likely to prevail on the merits, and confirmed it will advance its claims through discovery and, if necessary, a jury trial in pursuit of a permanent injunction.
Broader stakes for the industry
NCAA President Charlie Baker has made the relationship between college sports and sports betting one of his most prominent policy priorities.
Baker has publicly pushed for restrictions on player prop bets and micro-bets, arguing that markets tied to individual athlete performance expose players to harassment and create conditions for potential game manipulation.
The NCAA has lobbied at state and federal level to tighten restrictions on college sports wagering and has consistently declined sponsorship approaches from sportsbook operators.
The DraftKings lawsuit is the most direct enforcement action that stance has produced. A permanent injunction, if ultimately granted following discovery and trial, could require DraftKings and potentially other operators to change how they label and market NCAA tournament betting products.
Given that March Madness represents one of the most commercially significant events in the US sports betting calendar, the financial and operational stakes are substantial. The case will be tracked closely by operators, legal teams, and regulators across the industry as it moves forward.
Keep reading
Do you have a story worth sharing?
Send it over to our editors!
