Kansas City Chiefs stars Travis Kelce and Patrick Mahomes are facing a federal trademark infringement lawsuit over their luxury Kansas City steakhouse, 1587 Prime. The legal dispute concerns the restaurant’s name, which combines Mahomes’ jersey number 15 with Kelce’s number 87.
The lawsuit was filed on February 17, 2026, by 1587 Sneakers, an Asian American-owned footwear company that claims it used the number 1587 as a commercial brand before the restaurant entered the market.
The sneaker company alleges that the restaurant’s name and branded merchandise create consumer confusion and infringe its earlier trademark rights. It is seeking financial compensation and a court order restricting the restaurant’s use of the name.
The case remains unresolved as of October 10, 2026. Mahomes and Kelce have asked the court to dismiss the claims against them, while the sneaker company continues to oppose that request.
What Is the Travis Kelce Patrick Mahomes Restaurant Lawsuit About?
The controversy involves two businesses with different commercial backgrounds but nearly identical numerical branding.
1587 Prime opened in September 2025 in Kansas City, Missouri. The upscale steakhouse was developed through a partnership involving Kelce, Mahomes and hospitality company Noble 33.
However, the number 1587 was already being used by an independent footwear business.
1587 Sneakers began selling products in April 2023. Its founders selected the name to recognize the year Filipino sailors first arrived in what is now the United States, an event associated with the earliest documented Asian presence in America.
The sneaker company alleges that it established commercial rights to the name before the restaurant began operating. Although the businesses primarily serve different markets, the complaint argues that the restaurant also sells branded shirts and other apparel.
That merchandise is significant because it creates a potential overlap between the restaurant’s commercial activities and the sneaker company’s clothing and footwear business.
According to the complaint, consumers have questioned whether the two companies are connected. The plaintiff argues that these alleged misunderstandings demonstrate a risk of trademark confusion.
Who Filed the Lawsuit Against 1587 Prime?
1587 Sneakers, Inc. filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It names Kelce and Mahomes alongside 1587 Prime KC LLC, 1587 Prime Holdings LLC, Noble 33 Holdings LLC, Tosh Berman and Michael Tanha.
The lawsuit is titled 1587 Sneakers, Inc. v. Kelce et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01337. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald is overseeing the litigation.
The footwear company was founded by Adam King and Sam Hyun. Beyond the business dispute, its founders say the number 1587 represents Asian American history and identity. Those associations explain why the company considers the numerical name an important part of its brand.
Why Is the Restaurant’s Merchandise Important?
Under U.S. trademark law, two businesses do not necessarily infringe each other’s rights simply because they use similar names. Courts look at several factors, including the strength of a claimed mark, the similarity of the branding, the relationship between goods or services, and evidence of likely consumer confusion.
Here, one company principally sells footwear while the other operates a steakhouse. That difference may support the defendants’ position. But 1587 Sneakers argues that the restaurant’s sales of branded apparel bring the two businesses closer together.
The complaint also points to questions allegedly raised by consumers who believed the sneaker company might be associated with the restaurant. Whether that evidence proves legally significant confusion will depend on further proceedings and the court’s assessment.
Judge Denied an Emergency Request to Stop the Name
Soon after filing suit, 1587 Sneakers asked the court for emergency relief intended to restrict use of the disputed branding while the case proceeded. On March 2, 2026, Judge Buchwald declined to sign the requested temporary restraining order.
The judge identified concerns about whether the New York court had personal jurisdiction over the defendants and whether the location was an appropriate venue. She also noted the company’s delay in seeking emergency relief after learning that the restaurant would open.
The footwear company sought reconsideration, but the court denied that request on March 10. Neither decision resolved the underlying trademark allegations. As a result, the restaurant was not ordered to immediately abandon its name.
How Have Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce Responded?
On July 3, 2026, attorneys for Mahomes and Kelce filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the claims against them. Their arguments concern the court’s personal jurisdiction, venue, and whether the complaint adequately alleges that the players individually committed infringing conduct.
The athletes’ legal position distinguishes their public association with the restaurant from direct legal responsibility for its operations. The sneaker company disputes that distinction, pointing to the players’ co-founder status and public promotion of the business.
These are opposing positions in ongoing litigation, not judicial findings. Even if the players succeed in having claims against them dismissed, that would not automatically determine whether the restaurant-related entities can continue using the disputed branding.
What Compensation Is 1587 Sneakers Seeking?
The plaintiff seeks an injunction against allegedly infringing uses of the 1587 name, including on restaurant merchandise. It also asks for monetary relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.
An injunction could have consequences for signage, promotional materials and branded clothing if the plaintiff ultimately establishes its claim. However, the court has not ordered the steakhouse to change its name, and no final damages award has been announced.
The case is not a consumer refund settlement or a personal injury claim. It is a commercial trademark dispute about brand rights, consumer confusion and the extent of responsibility among the defendants.
Latest Status of the 1587 Prime Lawsuit
As of October, 2026, the trademark litigation remains pending, with no verified final verdict or settlement. The court records show that an amended complaint was filed in June and that dismissal motions and opposition papers followed during the summer.
Reporting published in October confirms that the disagreement over the players’ involvement and the court’s authority continues. The earlier denial of emergency relief should not be confused with dismissal of the lawsuit itself.
The eventual outcome may turn on procedural questions before any court reaches a final decision about trademark infringement. For now, the lawsuit illustrates how a restaurant name tied to famous athletes can collide with the branding of an unrelated business that claims earlier commercial use.
