Ben Johns & Anna Leigh Waters, number one players in the world (left), tennis star Carlos Alcaraz playing pickleball ahead of the U.S. Open (right). Photos from PPA and Vogue, respectively.[1]
Christopher Li
Read the Full Article || Download the PDF
This blog intends to highlight some of the protectionist behavior that occurs within pickleball. It will discuss one of many examples in which pickleball companies protect their patent portfolios and how serious they are to enforce them (JOOLA patent infringement lawsuit that is currently ongoing), and the NCAA threatening the NCPA (National Collegiate Pickleball Association) over trademark infringement. For a deeper dive into this story and more, refer to the “Read the Full Article” hyperlink above.
Why is pickleball the fastest growing sport year after year?[2] Could it be its lower barrier to entry, easy access, or the socialization aspect? Likely a mix of all the above, pickleball has seen a staggering growth of 480% from 2020 with an estimated player base of 24.3 million players as of 2025.[3] In a sports industry that already has many established net sports such as tennis, breaking through at such a fast pace seemingly has two consequences: resistance from sports organizations that may feel as if they are being displaced by pickleball, and an effort to capture the expanding market share of players.[4]
Displacement and Legal Action
Perhaps an indicator of fear of displacement comes from the fairly recent trademark dispute between the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) and the National Collegiate Pickleball Association (NCPA).[5] The NCPA was established in 2023 with a goal to grow collegiate pickleball nationwide as they sponsor and host tournaments around the country as a way to incentivize colleges to have their own pickleball teams.[6] The founder has also filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register the mark.[7] However, these actions were closely followed by the NCAA sending a cease-and-desist letter to the NCPA alleging trademark infringement that is ongoing today.[8]
The NCAA’s cease-and-desist letter alleges that the name “NCPA” causes a likelihood of confusion, dilution, and unfair competition.[9] For likelihood of confusion, the NCAA is probably arguing that both the long and short-hand version of the NCPA and its use is “likely to cause confusion” with its own organization, as described in 15 U.S.C. § 1114.[10] For dilution, the NCAA is likely alleging that, being a famous mark that is appropriately distinct, it is being injured via “dilution by blurring” where the NCPA name is “impairing the distinctiveness of a famous mark”.[11] Finally, the organization is likely arguing that by potentially misaffiliating or causing confusion between the NCAA and NCPA, the NCPA is benefiting unfairly from the established reputation and brand of the NCAA.
Is it that upon hearing the words “National”, “Collegiate”, and “Association” in some combination, the reasonable person is likely to confuse an unaffiliated organization with the NCAA? What about the fact that pickleball has not yet been recognized as an official NCAA sport (it’s not like the association already sponsors pickleball)?[12] There’s room to make good-faith arguments for either party, if not for a crucial fact: the NCPA is not the only organization in the college athletics space with arguably just as similar-sounding marks to the NCAA. There is, including but not limited to, the National College Players Association, the National Collegiate Esports Association, and the National Collegiate Scouting Association.[13] Oddly enough, the NCAA has not filed a similar letter or trademark infringement suit against any of those organizations. Perhaps the organization views pickleball as a threat to either displacing its upcoming plans to sponsor the sport or poaching tennis players.
The NCAA may have taken its action this early for a few reasons. First, it may be strategically threatening a high-cost and lengthy litigation to which an individual like Suemnick may not want to face, thus influencing the NCPA choosing a different name. Second, by resolving the dispute before a USPTO examiner reviews the application and approves the mark, fewer bodies will need to be involved in the conflict resolution, and the NCAA may not need to build a legal argument that fully meets the standards as described in the Lanham Act.
Despite the pressure, the NCPA has remained set on its goal to promote pickleball. It now organizes for over 150 universities, 50,000 collegiate club members, 5,000 players, and 20 annual tournaments.[14] If the NCAA chooses to file a formal lawsuit, one should view either outcome as a positive for pickleball. If the NCAA wins, it is implicitly acknowledging the growth of pickleball and may add it into its list of official sports, bringing additional sponsors and resources. On the other hand, if the NCAA loses, that would allow the NCPA to continue growing uninterrupted. Whatever the reason for the NCAA’s action and its pre-emptiveness, it will be important for the pickleball community to remain on notice for the outcome.
Capturing Market Share
To the average pickleball player, a cheap paddle from Target or Amazon is sufficient. But for the demographic of players who take the sport more seriously, the quality of their paddle is everything. The higher the level of play, the more that paddle weight, spin, and power matters in a game. As such, players will often spend upwards of $100 to many times $300 on pickleball paddles, replacing them within a year to take advantage of the newest technology to help their game. With such quick replacements and high prices, many companies unsurprisingly compete in the growing $270 million dollar market that is set to be worth almost $600 million in 8 years.[15]
In order to retain their competitive advantage, pickleball companies innovate in pickleball equipment. For example, CRBN, notably known for their Trufoam product line, has many patents granted and pending in their core technology. One such example is patent publication no. US20250058189A1 describing a novel type of “expanded polypropylene (EPP)” material inside a pickleball paddle core made of honeycomb, a common core material for pickleball paddles.[16] The core is what generates most of the power and spin for a paddle, and companies constantly test new material composites with different structures to find their “next generation” models.[17]
While innovating is a great way to generate profits, it is just as important to protect what is already patented. JOOLA, one of the most popular brands in ping pong, tennis and pickleball, filed a patent infringement lawsuit this year against eleven other major pickleball brands.[18] Among these brands are Franklin, Proton, Paddletek, and other names that, when combined, make up the majority of competitors in this industry.[19] In 2025, JOOLA filed and was granted 2 patents by the USPTO that describe the structural relationship between the paddle components rather than the material of the core and paddle.[20] The patents describe a gap between the outer edge of a paddle’s core, and filler material between the gap of the paddle edge and said core.[21] This configuration cemented a new generation (“Gen 3”) of paddles by not just JOOLA, but for many other alleged “copycats” from other competitors, because the innovation led to an increase in power, and a decrease in vibration being transferred to the player’s arm, which reduces the damage to their joints.[22] By keeping the material compositions vague and using broad language such as “at least”,[23] JOOLA has broadened its claims to exclusively retain the ability to build a paddle with a structure even somewhat dissimilar to its Gen 3 product lines.[24] So long as there’s a gap in any part of the core boundary, a filler in that gap that runs along a head portion of the paddle, a competitor may be in infringement.[25]
The implications from JOOLA’s actions should be closely monitored for several reasons. For starters, litigation is always costly, and as the paddle market becomes more saturated, likely so will competitors’ margins thin out. For bigger players such as Franklin and Adidas, they can probably afford to argue their case given their resources,[26] however smaller competitors may not be able to do anything but settle. Additionally, JOOLA filed their case in not just the traditional court system, but also to the International Trade Commission (ITC).[27] Traditional courts can issue injunctions and money damages, but the ITC typically moves faster, is more relaxed with their joinder rules, and can ban imports from rival infringing competitors.[28] As most pickleball paddles are manufactured overseas in China, the consequences for the market are likely going to be big.[29] In fact, settling may be such a preferred option, that as of May 13, 2026, Paddletek and ProXR have settled with JOOLA.[30] The remaining nine defendants are still in an ongoing battle and as they make their decisions, some may prevail, settle, or make similar agreements so as to not disrupt their revenue streams. Ultimately, if JOOLA’s patent claims are going to be construed broadly by the courts throughout this litigation, it would impose a very challenging landscape such that smaller companies not even named in the lawsuit may exit the industry, and those who wanted to enter the market may not do so at all. With royalties, license deals, and less competition, this may ultimately mean higher costs passed to consumers. From that standpoint, then, the pickleball community should hope that JOOLA’s IP rights are deservedly protected, but not to the point of tending toward a monopoly; the lawsuit should serve to clarify the rules in the paddle equipment space and not to centralize market power into one competitor. IP rights are understandably recognized in the Constitution,[31] but as reflected in Antitrust Law, should not be seen as a blanket exemption simply because one like JOOLA owns a patent.
While there is much speculation around the legal subject matter within pickleball, it is also why it is a fascinating time to follow the issues as they resolve. Much of this speculation is a symptom of pickleball’s state: it is still a novel sport that is in its growth stages. Pickleball equipment companies await the JOOLA litigation that could shape the future of the paddle market, and the sport has yet to gain legitimacy in the eyes of the NCAA. The sport faces adversity from the United States Tennis Association, and there is much discussion surrounding contract breaches in the professional scene (more on this can be found in the full article). With all that being said, despite the abundance of ambiguity for the future of the sport, the best thing one can do for pickleball in 2026 is to remain positive about the timely resolution of these issues, and by picking up a paddle, hopping on a court with their friends, and experiencing the magic of it to understand why it continues to be the fastest growing sport in America!
Bio:
My name is Christopher Li, and I am a 2L, final-year student in the Accelerated JD program here at Suffolk. I have participated in sports all my life, most notably swimming & diving for my high school and college and have recently taken an interest to pickleball. Away from the classroom and off the court, I enjoy consuming film and media, playing the piano, working on my own coding projects, and of course, pickleball!
Contact: Chris.Li@su.suffolk.edu
Disclaimer:
The Suffolk Law Sports & Entertainment Law Association Blog is a student-run publication intended to encourage discussion, analysis, and enjoyment of issues related to sports and entertainment law. The content published on the Blog is for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Suffolk University Law School, the Sports & Entertainment Law Association, or any affiliated faculty, staff, or students. Nothing on this Blog should be construed as creating an attorney–client relationship. AI was used only for creating the hyperlinks to the Author’s full article.
[1]Andrew Gilman, Waters Walks It and Talks It in Atlanta, PPA TOUR (July 11, 2023), https://www.ppatour.com/waters-walks-it-and-talks-it-in-atlanta/; Ali Farooqui, Ahead of the US Open, Carlos Alcaraz, Caroline Wozniacki, and Taylor Fritz Played a Little Pickleball at the Annual Palace Invitational, VOGUE (Aug. 23, 2024), https://www.vogue.com/article/carlos-alcaraz-caroline-wozniacki-taylor-fritz-palace-invitational-pickleball.
[2]U.S. Pickleball Participation Statistics, SPORTS & FITNESS INDUSTRY ASS’N, https://sfia.org/research/u-s-pickleball-participation/ (last visited Sept. 12, 2026).
[3]Id.
[4]Jason Flamm, USTA President Takes Dead Aim at Pickleball Ahead of the U.S. Open, THE DINK (Aug. 27, 2024), https://www.thedinkpickleball.com/usta-president-takes-dead-aim-at-pickleball-ahead-of-the-u-s-open/; Michael McCann, NCAA Slams College Pickleball League Name in Trademark Dispute, SPORTICO (Sept. 11, 2023), https://www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2023/ncaa-college-pickleball-trademark-dispute-1234738076/; Pickleball Equipment Market, Market.US (Nov. 2024), https://market.us/report/pickleball-equipment-market/.
[5]See McCann, supra note 4.
[6]Id.
[7]The NCAA’s Summer of Legal Battles, REAVIS PAGE JUMP LLP (Sept. 14, 2023), https://rpjlaw.com/the-ncaas-summer-of-legal-battles/. See also McCann, supra note 4.
[8]McCann, supra note 4.
[9]Id.
[10]15 U.S.C. § 1114 (2024).
[11]15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (2024).
[12]Nick O’Brien, When will pickleball become a college sport?, TEACHME.TO, https://teachme.to/blog/when-will-pickleball-become-a-college-sport (last visited Sept. 13, 2026).
[13]McCann, supra note 4.
[14]National Collegiate Pickleball Association, NCPA, https://ncpaofficial.com/ (last visited Sept. 13, 2026).
[15]Pickleball Paddles Market and Future Outlook, FORTUNE BUS. INSIGHTS (June 15, 2026), https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/pickleball-paddles-market-116323.
[16]U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. US 2025/0058189 A1, Paddle Technology (filed Aug. 16, 2024) (published Feb. 20, 2025), https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/18807453.
[17]Benjamin Carper, The Complete Pickleball Equipment Guide 2026: Every Piece of Gear, Ranked by What Actually Matters, FORWRD (May 18, 2026), https://forwrd.co/blogs/gear-guides/pickleball-equipment-guide-2026.
[18]Joseph Sutton, JOOLA’s Patent Lawsuit Means More for Pickleball Than You Think, PICKLEBALL.COM (May 13, 2026), https://pickleball.com/blogs/joolas-patent-lawsuit-means-more-for-pickleball-than-you-think.
[19]Id.
[20]Id.
[21]Id.
[22]Alex Lantz, JOOLA files patent infringement lawsuit against 11 other pickleball paddle manufacturers, KITCHEN (Apr. 7, 2026), https://thekitchenpickle.com/blogs/news/joola-pickleball-patent-infringement-lawsuit-2026/.
[23]U.S. Patent No. 12,465,826 (issued 2025).
[24]Sutton, supra note 21.
[25]Id.
[26]Id.
[27]Mehnaz Khatoon, “Pickleball Patent Wars”: JOOLA launches paddle patent infringement campaign against 11 rivals in ITC, district courts, IP FRAY (Apr. 15, 2026), https://ipfray.com/pickleball-patent-wars-joola-launches-paddle-patent-infringement-campaign-against-11-rivals-in-itc-district-courts/.
[28]Id.
[29]Id.
[30]Id. (Explaining how Paddletek & ProXR must pay royalties, add JOOLA’s patent number to the affected products, and phase out any infringing products not included in their license agreements)
[31]U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
Leave a Reply