When you see the number eight on a jersey, which sports icon pops into your mind? For many, it might still be Kobe Bryant in his early days. For others, it’s Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson, who has built a brand around that number. Now, he’s asking the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to stop another sports legend from doing the same, per Yahoo.
Jackson officially filed a trademark opposition on April 2 against NASCAR icon Dale Earnhardt Jr., challenging his application to trademark a stylized version of the number eight. The claim? Jackson says it could confuse consumers who associate the number with his personal brand, “ERA 8 by Lamar Jackson,” which he already uses to sell clothing and duffel bags.
This isn’t Jackson’s first skirmish over the digit. He’s still in an ongoing dispute with NFL Hall of Famer Troy Aikman over similar grounds. But this new conflict brings a fresh twist, pitting a current two-time NFL MVP against a retired stock car driver with deep ties to the same number.
The Eight That Carries Weight
Earnhardt’s connection to No. 8 isn’t just nostalgia. He raced under that number for eight full seasons during his Cup Series run, capturing major wins and cementing himself as a fan favorite. He was even inducted into the NASCAR Hall of Fame in 2021, with the number playing a key part in his legacy.
Jackson, on the other hand, wore No. 8 at Louisville and carried it into the NFL. He’s since become one of the league’s brightest stars, using his number as a pillar of his commercial identity. His legal team argues that Earnhardt’s new trademark could mislead buyers into thinking they’re purchasing Jackson-affiliated merch when they’re not.
Trademark attorney Josh Gerben, who reported on the filing, notes that while these cases sometimes head to trial, they more often end in settlement. The road ahead will likely stretch for months, if not years.
Still, the question remains: Can any one athlete truly “own” a number? Or is this just the latest example of how branding, image, and money continue to blur the line between legacy and legality?