Mahomes and Kelce Face Trademark Battle Over Steakhouse Name

A federal trademark dispute over the name of Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce's Kansas City steakhouse has intensified, with the company bringing the lawsuit pushing back against the NFL stars' characterization of their involvement in the restaurant venture.

The company 1587 Sneakers filed suit against Mahomes and Kelce for trademark infringement, asserting it already held the trademark to 1587 for its footwear business before the athletes launched 1587 Steakhouse. According to court documents obtained by TMZ, the sneaker company has now responded to the Chiefs players' motion to dismiss the case.

In their motion to dismiss, Mahomes and Kelce argued they hold no direct interest in the limited liability company that operates the restaurant and are not authorized to exert control over its operations. The athletes further contended they have no ties to New York, where the federal case was filed, suggesting the venue is improper for the litigation.

The plaintiff company rejected this portrayal in newly filed court documents. According to TMZ, 1587 Sneakers accused the two football stars of attempting to recast themselves as "two distant celebrities that are mere promotional 'pretty faces' of the alleged infringing enterprise with no New York ties."

The steakhouse's official website describes the establishment as "a collaboration between NFL icons Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, in partnership with Noble 33." Both athletes participated in an extensive promotional campaign in late 2025 to publicize the restaurant's opening.

The lawsuit centers on the restaurant's name, which combines the jersey numbers of both players. Mahomes wears number 15 for the Chiefs, while Kelce wears number 87. The sneaker company maintains it secured trademark protection for 1587 prior to the steakhouse's launch and argues the athletes cannot distance themselves from responsibility for the naming decision.

The plaintiff insists Mahomes and Kelce should be required to defend themselves in the trademark dispute despite their claims of limited involvement. The case remains pending in federal court.