Missoula group appeals BLM move on northeastern Montana bison

MISSOULA, Mont. — Western Watersheds Project, represented by the Western Environmental Law Center, has appealed the Bureau of Land Management’s decision to revoke American Prairie’s authority to graze bison on public lands in northeastern Montana.

BLM approved the permits in 2022 after a multi-year environmental review that found bison grazing was allowed on public lands and would be better for prairie grasslands than cattle. The groups said the agency later reversed course in five months and used a new “production-oriented” standard without defining it.

The legal challenge centers on whether privately owned bison qualify as livestock under federal law. The groups said BLM had already concluded in 2022 that bison met that standard under the Taylor Grazing Act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act. 

"BLM’s new interpretation has no basis in law and contradicts its own findings," said Pete Frost, attorney at the Western Environmental Law Center, in a joint release, "BLM reversed itself due to politics, not the law, nor the need to restore prairie grasslands."

The groups also pointed to Montana’s treatment of American Prairie’s herd as livestock through taxes and disease testing requirements. They said American Prairie has also provided thousands of pounds of bison meat to area food banks and supplied bison for food, commercial and cultural uses.

“The Trump administration’s revocation of these bison grazing permits is beyond bizarre because bison evolved with High Plains ecosystems and are better for land health, better for wildlife and better for the public than cattle,” said Erik Molvar. “Tribes also have bison herds for cultural, ecological and subsistence purposes, which this permit revocation would threaten if it went through.”

A Congressional Research Service report published January 22, 2026, found that 88% of BLM grazing authorizations were for cattle, yearlings and bison, and it reaffirmed the Interior Department’s conclusion that bison qualify as livestock under the Taylor Grazing Act, the release said.

The groups also said proposed grazing rules released days after the revocation used the same “production-oriented” requirement. If adopted, they said those rules could block bison restoration on 155 million acres of public land across the western U.S. 

Western Environmental Law Center and Western Watersheds Project said they plan to keep pursuing administrative appeals and would file suit if needed.

(The Center Square) – Proposed tariffs on imports from 60 economies could raise nearly $970 billion over the next decade, according to estimates released Monday by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

The tariffs, proposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, represent the broadest use of that authority to date and the Trump administration's largest effort to rebuild its tariff revenue base after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in February.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the new Section 301 tariffs would generate about $980 billion in revenue over 10 years. After accounting for an estimated $10 billion reduction tied to changes in steel, aluminum and copper tariffs, the net revenue gain would total roughly $970 billion on a conventional basis.

Combined with tariffs already in place, the administration is projected to collect about $1.9 trillion in tariff revenue through fiscal year 2036, down from a projected $2.7 trillion before the Supreme Court's February ruling.

Despite the additional revenue, federal debt is still projected to reach 122% of gross domestic product by 2036, according to CRFB. Before the court ruling, debt was projected to reach 120% of GDP by that year.

Since losing its authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the administration has relied on multiple trade statutes to pursue its tariff agenda. Courts also struck down a 10% global tariff imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act in May.

A pending Supreme Court case, HMTX Industries v. United States, could limit the federal government's ability to expand Section 301 tariffs.

Economists generally conclude that tariffs are paid largely by American consumers and businesses rather than foreign governments. Research from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that the costs of tariffs are primarily borne domestically.

The Yale Budget Lab, a nonpartisan policy research center, estimates the existing tariffs cost the average U.S. household between $600 and $800 annually, a figure that does not include the proposed Section 301 tariffs.

The White House disputes that assessment.

"The cost of tariffs will ultimately be borne by foreign exporters who rely on access to the American economy," White House spokesman Kush Desai previously told The Center Square.

Public comments on the proposed tariffs are due by July 6. Hearings are scheduled for July 7.

(The Center Square) - Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of Microsoft, will testify before the U.S. House Oversight Committee in a closed-door hearing on Wednesday over ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Gates is among several individuals brought in by lawmakers on the oversight committee to testify about their relationship with Epstein. Previously, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, former Attorney General Pam Bondi and former president Bill Clinton were brought in to testify about Epstein.

Gates was mentioned various times throughout the U.S. Department of Justice’s release of documents associated with Epstein. He appeared with Epstein in estate photos released by the DOJ in December 2025.

Gates said he met with Epstein several times starting in 2011, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 on charges of solicitation of prostitution with a minor.

“I was foolish to spend time with him,” Gates said in an interview. “I was one of many people who regret ever knowing him.”

In drafted emails from July 2013, Epstein claims Gates contracted a sexually transmitted infection. A spokesperson for Gates has denied claims in the email.

“While Mr. Gates acknowledges that meeting with Epstein was a serious error in judgment, he unequivocally denies any improper conduct related to Epstein and the horrible activities in which Epstein was involved,” the spokesperson said.

In February, Gates told a news outlet his meetings with Epstein were limited to dinners and that he regretted the time he spent with the deceased child sex offender. Gates has also denied Epstein’s financial involvement in his philanthropic endeavours.

“The foundation did not pursue any collaboration with Epstein and no fund was ever created,” the Gates Foundation wrote. “At no time were financial payments made by the foundation to Epstein, nor was he employed by the foundation at any time.”

Epstein also claimed Gates asked him to facilitate illicit sexual encounters and purchase drugs.

House Oversight Chair James Comer, R-Ky., said lawmakers on the committee will interview individuals associated with Epstein over the next few weeks. Leon Black, founder of Apollo Global Management; Doug Band, former aide to President Bill Clinton; and Kathy Ruemmler, former White House counsel for President Barack Obama, will testify on their relationship to and knowledge of Epstein.

Gates will testify to lawmakers behind closed doors and his testimony will nto be immediately available to the public.

(The Center Square) – The Trump administration is considering buying the Chagos Islands in the central Indian Ocean from Mauritius, but the cost of such a deal is unclear and Mauritius says it hasn't been approached.

The White House is weighing several options to secure the Diego Garcia base, including purchasing the Chagos Islands directly from Mauritius, bypassing the United Kingdom, which currently administers the territory but has been unable to complete a handover deal.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent brought the purchase proposal to President Donald Trump, although it is not considered a leading option, according to reports.

A White House official, speaking on background, said Diego Garcia is "a vital and indispensable military installation of significant importance to the national security of the United States," and that Trump remains opposed to Britain's plan to transfer sovereignty of the islands.

Mauritius said it has not been approached by the Trump administration. "Mauritius's position remains unchanged: its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago is non-negotiable," the government said in a statement Monday.

Even if Mauritius were open to a deal, pricing such a purchase would be complicated. There is no standard methodology for valuing a strategic military asset like Diego Garcia. A merger-and-acquisition approach – valuing the territory based on its revenue stream – might be one option, but would likely not satisfy Mauritius or the indigenous Chagossian people.

Historical precedents exist. The U.S. bought Alaska for $7.2 million in 1867 and the Virgin Islands for $25 million in 1917, but analysts say those examples are too old to provide useful benchmarks.

The U.S. faced similar valuation uncertainty when Trump proposed buying Greenland, where cost estimates ranged from $186 billion to $4.4 trillion, The Center Square previously reported.

Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said a long-term lease may be more realistic than an outright purchase.

"We might make a deal with Mauritius and the local people similar to what we did with the UK, and make this a long-term lease, not a purchase," he told The Center Square. "Functionally, that would be the same for the United States."

Any purchase would likely require congressional authorization and appropriation of funds.

The strategic importance of Diego Garcia is a key reason the administration is examining alternatives to the UK-Mauritius agreement. Diego Garcia lies in the central Indian Ocean and is one of 66 significant U.S. defense sites across the Indo-Pacific region, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The U.S. Navy installation spans about 6,200 acres and supports about 2,400 military and civilian personnel. It has served as a critical logistics hub for U.S. operations for decades, including the 1991 Gulf War, the 2003 Iraq War and, most recently, operations against Iran.

Trump criticized the UK's plan to hand over the islands earlier this year, calling it a "big mistake."

Britain paused the deal in April after the U.S. withdrew its support. The UK has said it will not proceed without U.S. backing. The existing agreement would have seen Mauritius take sovereignty while Britain retained access to Diego Garcia under a 99-year lease, paying Mauritius £101 million ($135 million) annually, according to Reuters.

Ultimately, any purchase price would come down to what the parties are willing to agree to, Cancian said.

"It would be a question of what the different parties would agree to," he told The Center Square.

The Telegraph first reported the administration was considering a purchase of the islands as Britain's planned sovereignty transfer remains on hold.

HELENA, Mont. – An emergency mandate has been ordered effective immediately by the Montana Department of Livestock to supervise and protect Montana livestock from potential exposure to the New World screwworm (NWS).

The department’s Animal Health Administrator/State Veterinarian issued an emergency order to stop the import of animals from states with NWS infestations until preventive measures have been met.

For livestock from out of state to enter Montana, they must pass inspection and be free of wounds and any sign of NWS infestation. Livestock for inspection include all cattle, bison, swine, poultry, sheep, goats, horses, and livestock such as llamas and alpacas.

If any animal in a shipment for Montana is suspected of having an NWS infestation, no animals in the shipment may enter Montana until all animals have been treated and all wounds have healed.

Approved treatment must have been given no less than 72 hours and no more than 14 days prior to entry in Montana.

NWS larvae infest open wounds, feeding on living tissue, affecting dogs, cats, livestock, wildlife and occasionally humans. The larvae burrow into healthy tissue, causing serious damage if untreated. 

The order is effective immediately and may last no longer than five years.

For more information, livestock owners can read the order issued by the Montana Department of Livestock here.

(The Center Square) – Congressional leaders are desperate to renew the federal government’s authority to conduct mass electronic surveillance before the authority expires, but dozens of lawmakers in both chambers are bucking a long-term extension unless it includes significant reforms.

Dozens of Democrats and a significant handful of Republicans are insisting that any reauthorization of FISA Section 702, which expires June 12, contain protections for Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights.

Specifically, they want to require warrants for searches of Americans’ electronic data, which FISA Section 702 allows federal agencies to collect.

Republican privacy hawks had already voiced concerns over the issue, but President Donald Trump’s recent appointment of Bill Pulte as the new acting director of National Intelligence has united practically all Democrats against a clean FISA 702 extension as well.

Democrats particularly object to Pulte's complete lack of intelligencer national security expertise, dubbing the former housing regulator an "unqualified" pick.  

“To get to good faith negotiation [over FISA Section 702 reauthorization], the effort to elevate Bill Pulte as the acting director of National Intelligence should be reversed immediately,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told reporters Monday. “And then let's see where we wind up at the end of the week.”

Echoing the sentiments of Democrats in the Senate, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, called Pulte’s appointment “the final straw.”

“Pulte has no business overseeing a warrantless spying program for Donald Trump, Democrats understand that,” Wyden posted Monday on social media. “I'll be fighting like hell between now and June 12 to ensure Congress doesn't cave and renew Section 702 of FISA without real reforms. Security and liberty aren't mutually exclusive, and it seems like Congress is finally starting to understand that.”

Although Section 702 technically only authorizes federal intelligence agencies to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance on foreign nationals of suspicion, Americans’ data is often swept up as well.

Not only can intelligence agencies store that data for up to five years, but federal agents can and do routinely search that data without obtaining a warrant, known as “backdoor searches.”

In one of the most infamous known cases, FBI agents scoured the data of 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. Tens of thousands of American protestors or those simply suspected of “civil unrest” have also had their communications spied upon, and even some members of Congress had their data searched via Section 702, declassified documents show.

So far, the modest transparency reforms proposed by congressional leaders have failed to satisfy privacy hawks.

The Senate tanked a procedural vote Friday that would have allowed leaders to begin debate on a three-year extension. The proposed extension included some privacy reforms, but no warrant requirement.

“FISA is meant to target foreign adversaries, not give the federal government a backdoor into Americans’ communications,” Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., said over the weekend. “As Congress works toward the June 12 deadline, I will continue fighting for a warrant requirement and lasting reforms that protect the Fourth Amendment.”

Section 702 was enacted in 2008 to retroactively justify NSA secretly gathering personal electronic communications between U.S. and Afghanistan individuals for years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

With the current U.S.-Iran conflict heightening global tensions and domestic security risks, the Trump administration is arguing that lawmakers should avoid any reforms that could potentially hinder foreign intelligence gathering.

Monday marks the 100th day since the U.S. and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran, triggering the current conflict. Congress, which holds the power to declare war, never authorized the military hostilities.

Both the House and the Senate have bipartisanly passed respective War Powers Resolutions, but even if one clears both chambers, the Trump administration is unlikely to heed it.

(The Center Square) - Election results for Los Angeles mayoral candidate Spencer Pratt became uncertain Sunday evening after City Councilmember Nithya Raman edged past him.

Mayor Karen Bass remained securely in first place with 34.68% of the vote or 250,871 ballots from the June 2 primary, according to results shortly before 5 p.m. Sunday from the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk’s Office.

Raman reached 27.12% of the vote, or 196,198 ballots. That puts her at less than 1 percentage point ahead of Pratt, who had 26.69% or 193,085 votes.

Based on the results, Bass, a Democrat who served in Congress and the California Assembly, will be on the Nov. 3 ballot, but it’s uncertain whether Raman or Pratt will be the one opposing her. 

Updates are scheduled through June 26. The next one is set for 4 p.m. Pacific time Monday.

About 150,000 ballots remain to be counted, according to media reports.

The Center Square reached out Monday to the campaigns for Bass, Pratt and Raman, but did not get an immediate response.

All three candidates are far ahead of the other 11 candidates, each of whom had less than 4% of the vote.

Pratt, a former reality TV star and Republican who lost his home to the devastating Palisades Fire in January 2025, has criticized Bass for her response to the wildfire. The mayor has been widely criticized for being in the African nation of Ghana for a presidential inauguration when the Palisades Fire started.

Pratt, who has a large following on social media and has received national attention, has also criticized Bass for poor responses to crime, homelessness and housing.

For her part, Raman, a Democrat who's a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, has said many Angelenos feel Los Angeles is headed in the wrong direction. It’s a point she stressed in an interview at her website, www.nithyaforthecity.com.

Bass’ campaign website, karenbass.com, gives the mayor credit for decreasing homelessness and building more housing.

President Donald Trump Monday said Raman’s rise above Pratt shows there’s election tampering. “No way this could have happened. Rigged Election!” Trump posted on his social media platform TruthSocial.

“Me trying to figure how votes get counted in LA,” Pratt posted on Instagram, next to a photo of Russell Crowe portraying math genius and Nobel prize winner John Forbes Nash Jr.  doing calculations on a window in the 2001 movie “A Beautiful Mind.”

The Center Square reached out Monday morning to the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk's Office, but a spokesperson was not immediately available for a phone interview.

On its website, the office said, “Maintaining ballot security and voter privacy is our primary objective. Members of the public are welcome to observe and view the various election-related operations, but they will be required to sign in and must follow all observer rules and guidelines.”

The Ballot Processing Center is at 13401 Crossroads Parkway North, City of Industry.

(The Center Square) - A federal judge in Massachusetts on Monday blocked President Donald Trump's policy seeking to implement a $100,000 fee on visas for highly skilled foreign workers. 

U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin said Trump's order imposing a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa recipients is "unlawful."

On Sept. 19, 2025, Trump signed a proclamation imposing a one-time $100,000 fee on future foreign workers coming to the United States through the H-1B visa. He cited wage suppression and a reduction in jobs for American workers in his proclamation. 

"Some employers, using practices now widely adopted by entire sectors, have abused the H-1B statute and its regulations to artificially suppress wages, resulting in a disadvantageous labor market for American citizens," the proclamation read. 

In fiscal 2025, the United States approved 328,185 workers on H-1B visas throughout the country. The H-1B visa is reserved for highly skilled workers, typically in science, technology and engineering fields. 

Sorokin said the Trump administration's policy is an unconstitutional tax on individuals seeking entry into the United States, not an administrative penalty. 

"The $100,000 payment requirement amounts to a tax, not a penalty," Sorokin said.

Sorokin pointed to the the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to classify Trump's tariff policies as a tax on the American people to support his ruling.

Lawyers for the Trump administration argued the visa fee could not be considered a tax because it did not have the express purpose of raising revenue for the federal government. Sorokin was not convinced. 

"An obvious purpose of the Policy is to raise revenue – it charges a substantial fee for all H-1B petitions," Sorokin wrote. "Every $100,000 payment made pursuant to the Policy does raise revenue. That is indisputable."

Before implementation of the policy, fees associated with the H-1B visa included a $500 fraud prevention fee and $1,500 filing fee. 

Employment immigration lawyers have expressed mixed opinions on the Trump administration's H-1B visa fee. Shev Dalal Dheini, senior director of government relations at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the policy appeared to be unconstitutional. 

“This is a coordinated attack on U.S. innovation,” Dalal Dheini said. “Making it more difficult for the best and brightest to come to the United States and stay here and continue contributing to the United States.” 

Nathan Mondragon, chief information officer at HireVue, said he hoped the Trump administration's policy would expand opportunities for American citizen workers. 

“When employers clearly define the skills that matter most, they can expand their candidate pools by looking beyond traditional degree requirements, tap into overlooked U.S. talent, and invest in internal development programs,” Mondragon said. 

Lawyers for the Trump administration are expected to appeal Sorokin's decision. 

(The Center Square) – A new U.S. House oversight report alleges Minnesota officials were aware of "rampant" fraud risks in taxpayer-funded social programs for years but failed to act, allowing potentially billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to be lost.

The 205-page report, released by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and titled “The Cost of Doing Nothing: How Tim Walz and Keith Ellison Fueled Minnesota’s Fraud Explosion,” is culmination of a year-long investigation that included hearings, whistleblower testimony and document reviews.

It concludes that Minnesota state leaders had authority to suspend payments to providers suspected of fraud but often declined to do so without a final legal determination, even as warning signs grew across multiple high-risk programs.

The Republican majority committee asserts that:

"Testimony and documents obtained to date establish a consistent pattern: fraud warnings were elevated to the most senior levels of the Minnesota state government, meaningful corrective action was delayed or avoided, and payments continued long after credible signs of fraud emerged," the report says.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky, said in a statement accompanying the report that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison are responsible for one of the “most stunning oversight failures” ever examined by the committee.

“Today’s report is the culmination of months of investigative work and reveals hard evidence showing how the Walz Administration failed to stop widespread fraud, allowing criminals to enrich themselves at the expense of American taxpayers,” Comer said. “Billions of dollars were stolen because Minnesota state leaders turned a blind eye to rampant fraud and retaliated against state employees who dared to raise concerns. It is now clear the Walz Administration chose to protect the system rather than protect the taxpayer.”

The report alleges state officials were aware of credible fraud concerns as early as 2019 but did not take decisive action. It also claims that federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, did not instruct Minnesota officials to continue payments to suspected fraudulent providers, contradicting prior explanations offered by state leaders.

"Instead of trying to stop widespread fraud, Gov. Walz’s Administration retaliated against employees who tried to raise concerns, going to great lengths to keep them quiet, including intimidation through regular check-ins with high-level agency officials and threats of surveillance," the report says. "Concern among senior officials within DHS only arose after they recognized it would receive negative media attention."

The committee estimates roughly $300 million in federal child nutrition funds were lost in just the Feeding Our Future scheme, while broader taxpayer-funded fraud totals could be as much as $9 billion across multiple programs.

“Gov. Walz and Attorney General Ellison knew about the fraud in federal programs administered by the State of Minnesota much earlier than they admitted,” the report concluded. “Gov. Walz and Attorney General Ellison clearly did not protect taxpayer dollars, but it is still an open question as to whether this was incompetence, willful blindness, or worse.”

The findings build on an earlier report from Minnesota House Republicans, who conducted their own two-year investigation through the now-dissolved House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee.

As previously reported by The Center Square, that report also concluded that state agencies and Democrat officials failed created a "culture of fraud."

Rep. Kristin Robbins, R-Maple Grove, who chaired the committee, highlighted similar concerns about Minnesota’s current political administration earlier this year.

“They weren't just sort of unaware of the fraud,” Robbins previously told The Center Square. “They were aware of it and actively allowing it to continue or suppressing people who are trying to call it out.”

On Monday, Robbins quickly pointed to this new U.S. congressional report as validation of the state committee's findings.

“[The] report confirms what our hearings and whistleblowers have been demonstrating for two years,” Robbins said in a post to social media. “Walz, Ellison and their admin knew about the fraud . . . failed to stop the theft of billions of taxpayer dollars . . . failed to hold anyone accountable . . . retaliated against whistleblowers.”

Along with the report, Comer sent a letter to U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance requesting a federal review of Minnesota’s social service programs through the federal Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, which was established by President Donald Trump in March.

In the letter, Comer urged a “thorough review of all of Minnesota’s social services program integrity measures, oversight processes, reimbursements, and enrollment from 2019 to the present." 

Comer's letter added that:

"The state’s consistent failure to act decisively in the face of known fraud allowed brazen criminal schemes to flourish and diverted resources away from the vulnerable populations these programs were intended to serve."

Additionally, the report urges the Department of Justice and “all relevant law enforcement and regulatory agencies” to conduct a “thorough review of Minnesota’s social services program reimbursements and enrollment verification processes and procedures from 2019 to the present.”

It further recommends that federal agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, look at implementing rules to strengthen program integrity requirements for state-run programs, including the federal nutrition program, Child Care and Development Block Grants and Medicaid.

“Further legislative efforts at the federal level are necessary to prevent this massive waste, fraud, and abuse of federal dollars from ever happening again,” the report states.

The Walz administration and Ellison’s office have previously disputed similar allegations. The Center Square requested comment from both the governor’s office and the attorney general’s office regarding the report’s findings. Neither office responded prior to publication, and, as of Monday afternoon, neither had issued a public statement addressing the report.

The risk small businesses face when using ‘World Cup’ in marketing

The World Cup is a massive sporting event, with matches happening all over the U.S. And if your business is planning to host a watch party, promotion, giveaway, or social media campaign tied to it, it’s important to note that not all event-related marketing is treated the same way. While businesses can generally talk about sporting events and join in on the conversation, official logos and branding are often protected by trademark law.

The way small businesses are using these major sporting events to attract customers matters. Restaurants and bars host viewing parties. Retailers run promotions and giveaways. Service businesses create themed content. But beware that some marketing campaigns can unintentionally suggest an official connection or sponsorship when none exists.

As Rocket Lawyer explains in this article, there is no need to avoid the event entirely; you just need to understand where the line is. Participating in the excitement can quickly turn into using event-related branding in a way that could suggest sponsorship, endorsement, or an official connection, which is where most issues arise.

What Exactly Are World Cup Trademarks?

Organizations like FIFA invest heavily in protecting their intellectual property. This includes everything from logos and mascots to official slogans and other smaller branding elements associated with the event.

For businesses, the biggest risk becomes marketing in any way that appears to imply an official relationship with the event. For example, simply mentioning the name “World Cup” is often permissible, but using official logos in advertisements or promoting your business as an official partner when it isn't could raise concerns.

This doesn't mean you can't acknowledge the event. Many businesses successfully run overarching soccer-themed promotions, viewing parties, and related marketing without claiming affiliation.

The determining factor is understanding whether your marketing could reasonably lead customers to believe your business is sponsored by, endorsed by, or affiliated with the event.

Common Marketing Situations That Can Create Risk

Business owners are often surprised to learn that the risk comes from how marketing is presented, not just the words used.

Some situations worth reviewing include:

• Using official event logos or artwork in advertisements.
• Running contests or giveaways that suggest an official partnership.
• Creating sponsorship promotions that imply any kind of endorsement.
• Using protected branding on non-official merchandise or products.
• Posting content with marketing materials that combine your brand with official imagery.

Make sure your promotions focus on your business rather than someone else's protected intellectual property. Times when major events are happening are especially important because they attract increased attention from trademark owners seeking to protect their brands.

Questions You Should Ask Before Using a Trademarked Term in Your Marketing

Before launching a promotion, ask yourself a few key questions:

• Am I using official logos, artwork, or branding? If so, do I have permission to use them?
• Could customers think my business is officially connected to the event? Does my marketing imply sponsorship or endorsement?
• Am I hosting a watch party or having any promotions? How am I describing the event in my advertising?
• Have I reviewed my marketing materials for trademark concerns? Would a legal professional identify any potential issues before launch?

These questions can help you spot potential risks before it's too late, and a campaign is already live.

Next Steps

A few practical steps can help; you don't have to sit out major sporting events to protect your business:

1. Review promotional materials before publishing them. 

Pay special attention to logos, graphics/designs, and sponsorship language.

2. Focus on your own brand.

Build campaigns around your products and services rather than official event branding.

3. Train employees and marketing partners. 

Make sure everyone understands what materials can and cannot be used.

4. If you're unsure, ask for guidance. Legal professionals can help you identify potential trademark concerns, and can review higher-risk campaigns before launch.

Major events like the World Cup create valuable opportunities to engage customers. With a little planning, you can join the excitement while reducing risk and centering on your own brand.

This story was produced by Rocket Lawyer and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.