Not copyright, but trademark. FWIW.
A distinction with little difference.
Radio ad from a few yrs ago that got away with it, for Dean’s Chip Dip:
“We can’t say the name of this event but it’s really Super...like a Bowl of Dean’s Dip.”
Not copyright, but trademark. FWIW.
Trademark is for brands, which are usually, words, phrases, or logos. Trademark infringement is due to being confusingly similar, on related goods or services.
There’s a little overlap when an artistic work is also a logo.
This moronic article actually fails to give the answer to its own question.
The first answer is that the Super Bowl trademark covers broadcast and entertainment services, such as a little church gathering where admission is charged. The mark also covers all the different types of souvenir goods like shirts and hats.
But the NFL’s legal backfield has a few holes. Kraft owns Super Bowl for food, even though it started using its trademark about 10 years after the first super bowl.
The NFL would argue that its brand is a “famous” trademark (like Rolex, Coca-Cola, Cadillac, Smith & Wesson) and thus would be harmed by being used by others even on unrelated goods.
Even if so, that does not lawfully prevent the phrase “Super Bowl” from being used in a non-trademark sense. Yet the NFL still bullies others into fearing a baseless lawsuit for merely uttering the phrase.