March 26, 2026
Hologram? More like holo-drama
What Does a Hologram Trademark Signify When the Hologram Isn't There?
Upper Deck vs print-on-demand: is a photo of a Jordan card just wall art or brand fakery
TLDR: A court let most of Upper Deck’s claims against Pixels proceed over posters made from photos of Michael Jordan trading cards, though the hologram logo wasn’t “famous” for special protection. Commenters are split between “it’s just wall art” and “brand confusion is real,” debating how missing holograms signal authenticity and where fair use ends.
The internet saw “hologram” and instantly turned it into holo-drama. A print-on-demand site, Pixels, hosts posters made from photos of Michael Jordan trading cards, and Upper Deck is suing—over both MJ’s image and a little shiny logo that isn’t even shiny in the poster. The court said the hologram logo isn’t famous enough for special protection, but most of Upper Deck’s claims survive, so the fight goes on. Cue the comments: split like a jump ball.
One side is yelling: it’s obviously a poster, not a fake—no one thinks a flat print is a collectible card. The other side: a logo is a logo, and if you sell a photo with brand marks, don’t be shocked when lawyers appear. Fans roasted the situation with jokes about “Schrödinger’s hologram,” and quipped, “If it doesn’t shimmer, you must acquit.” Others grumbled the court didn’t address the obvious signal: a missing hologram screams “not authentic.”
Meanwhile, legal nerds translated the play-by-play: false advertising and false association claims live on, the First Amendment defense fizzled because the pics allegedly act like branding, not art, and summary judgment for Pixels was benched. Thread drama even included a title nitpick and eye rolls. Read the blog for the blow‑by‑blow and the hologram mark at the center of it all.
Key Points
- •Upper Deck sued Pixels over prints depicting Michael Jordan trading cards, asserting rights in licensed Jordan imagery and a registered hologram trademark.
- •The court ruled Upper Deck’s hologram mark was not sufficiently famous to support a trademark dilution claim.
- •On trademark infringement, Sleekcraft factors weighed mostly for Upper Deck (5 for, 2 against, 1 neutral), defeating Pixels’ summary judgment bid.
- •False advertising, false association (focused on Jordan’s marks), and right of publicity claims all survived Pixels’ summary judgment motion.
- •Pixels’ First Amendment Rogers defense failed because the court viewed the uses as source-identifying, involving Jordan’s marks and/or Upper Deck’s hologram mark.