ITV Almost Took Me to Court and Threatened Millions Over a Love Island Watch Party
I was going to throw a watch party with a friend – and here is what I learned.
Our Origin Story
On July 3, YMDLL welcomed our community to its very first Poetry Night—a celebration of fresh voices and big dreams. A week later, ITV Studios Limited, the producer of Love Island, dropped a cease-and-desist accusing our planned “Love Island Watch Party” with Cadence Creative LLC of infringing its rights. What follows is the story of how I responded, what their notice contained, where their claims fell short and where they stood on solid ground—and my thoughts on how licensing can remain both sustainable and fair for grassroots gatherings everywhere.
Disclaimer: This article is not legal advice and reflects solely my personal views and experiences under the spirit of the First Amendment. It is not an attack on ITV Studios or its intellectual property rights. YMDLL acknowledges its initial oversight and remains committed to fully respecting and upholding all applicable IP laws.
Impact on Our Partner
Our partner organization, Cadence Creative LLC, felt the impact immediately. Co-founder Zachary Glover recalls:
“I was extremely confused and frustrated. I was devastated because I was just trying to collaborate with a local business to bring our community together around a national cultural phenomenon. Other venues do this all the time—I thought it would be a great way to bring people together.”
My partner nearly had heart palpitations when that email landed. One minute you’re building something you love, the next you’re sweating over a multi-million-dollar company flexing its legal muscles. But when that cease-and-desist hit my inbox, I didn’t panic. I grabbed the reins and felt a surge of anger. I’ve spent years in corporate audit trenches, so I know this playbook: dense legalese and threats of massive liability are meant to scare you into silence. Who sends a letter like that to a tiny studio? We weren’t Dave & Buster’s or a nightclub pulling in ten-thousand-dollar nights—we just wanted a fun gathering around a show everyone loves.
We know exactly who’s behind those warnings: corporate counsel protecting its brand and bottom line. They have every right to defend their interests. What I can’t stand is how those very tactics suffocate community spirit, silence grassroots creativity, and turn what should be a shared cultural moment into a lonely, locked-down broadcast. Just because it’s the law doesn’t mean it’s just.
Fortunately, I have a superpower on my side: financial fluency from accounting and a way with words from publishing. In one night, I stripped every Love Island reference, rewrote our branding in plain text, and researched every relevant filing. When the law is heavy-handed, the best defense is knowing exactly where it stands.
Making My Way to the Byline: YMDLL
The sharply worded letter from ITV’s Brand Protection Team representing ITV Studios Limited and ITV America Inc, was received. The notice included a sweeping list of seventeen trademark categories, covering everything from cosmetics and apparel to broadcasting and entertainment services, all claimed under the Love Island brand.
The email warned that any watch party using the Love Island name, logo, hashtags or even its pastel visuals would amount to trademark infringement and unfair competition. It demanded the removal of every reference on social media, event pages, our website and printed materials, and it insisted we stop any unauthorized screenings of episodes, clips or music, or risk “millions in liability” under the Lanham Act.
They didn’t file suit, but they made it clear they’re holding all of their legal options in reserve. In their July 10 email, ITV’s Brand Protection Team:
Warned of “millions in liability” under the Lanham Act if the use continued
Threatened to notify online platforms of “infringement strikes” that could get our Eventbrite or social‐media accounts suspended
Reserved the right to seek injunctive relief and damages for any ongoing infringement
While ITV did not say “we’re suing you tomorrow,” they did explicitly threaten federal infringement claims, platform enforcement, and the possibility of large statutory damages if we failed to comply.
So, I did what any normal 25-year-old would do… I washed my hair, threw on a blue shirt and black cargo pants, grabbed my mismatched red and blue Pilates socks, slid into my clogs, and headed straight for the movie theater to catch the new Superman premiere.
Honestly, could you blame me? I’d been counting down the days, and it did not disappoint. By the time I walked out, I felt exactly how you do after witnessing something amazing: energized, inspired, and ready to face whatever came next.
Back home, I channeled my inner Modern-Day Lois Lane.
I rolled up my sleeves, grabbed a handful of dark chocolate for a late-night sugar boost, and plunged into the world of IP law. I did the digging so journalists can keep speaking truth and their audiences can keep trusting them, so small businesses won’t be bulldozed by legal jargon, for YMDLL’s next chapter and Cadence Creative’s future, for every timid creator finding their voice—and for you, our readers, who deserve to understand the real power and hidden pitfalls of every cease-and-desist.
Here’s what I uncovered. Receipts attached.
Registration Gaps and Legal Realities
Trademark Gaps
When I searched the USPTO database, I found that only one of the seven terms ITV cited is currently registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Three are pending and thus not enforceable under Section 32 of the Lanham Act. The remaining three do not appear in the U.S. registry at all, meaning they lack legal standing in U.S. court.
Source: Cease-and-Desist Letter
Key Points (Trademark):
· 1 of 7 marks is federally registered
· 3 marks are pending (not yet enforceable under Lanham Act § 32)
· 3 marks do not appear in the U.S. registry (not enforceable in federal court)
Copyright Timing
Source: Copyright.gov
U.S. law vests copyright the moment a work is fixed in tangible form. Copyright exists upon fixation, but a federal lawsuit requires a certificate of registration. ITV’s last registered episode on file is Season 5, Episode 2. If newer episodes — including any from Season 6 or 2025 — are unregistered, they cannot serve as the basis for a lawsuit under Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act.
Key Points (Copyright):
· Federal lawsuits require registration
· Unregistered episodes cannot trigger statutory damages or attorney’s fees
· Cease-and-desist can still be sent without registration, but federal court access is limited
Takeaways and Recommendations
ITV should register each new episode, or at least file within three months of its first airing, to preserve full remedies such as statutory damages and attorney’s fees. Until registrations are complete, cease-and-desist letters may threaten but cannot trigger federal infringement suits.
Understanding these procedural gaps gives small venues and community organizers the clarity they need about where the law truly stands, and where it makes sense to push back.
But What Exactly is IP Protection?
IP protection transforms creative and branding elements into enforceable rights. For a show like Love Island, this means:
Copyright guards the original content—episode scripts, music scores, set designs and footage.
Trademark secures the series name, official logos and distinctive visual themes (for example, the pastel color palette and the “Casa Amor” villa look).
Trade Dress & Broadcast Rights cover the overall presentation and the exclusive right to transmit or publicly perform the episodes.
Freeriding Explained
The cease-and-desist letter received, accused YMDLL of “Freeriding”.
Freeriding happens when you borrow another brand’s name, logo or look without permission—and in doing so suggest an official tie or endorsement. It has three parts:
Unauthorized Use
Displaying a trademarked name, logo or distinctive design without the owner’s consent.Riding on Goodwill
Drawing customers by leaning on a brand’s established reputation.Consumer Confusion
Causing people to think the rights-holder backs or sponsors your event.
When ITV labeled us as “freeriding,” they meant three things: using a trademark without permission, leaning on another brand’s reputation, and creating confusion about sponsorship. Calling our gathering a “Love Island Watch Party” and using its visuals technically fits that definition.
In reality, commonsense prevails. No one thinks a Philadelphia bar is run by the NFL just because it advertises “Super Bowl Sunday.” With a clear “Not affiliated with ITV” disclaimer and simple, generic design, we eliminate nearly all reasonable confusion.
However, the real grievance isn’t the legal standard but the license fees: they rarely adjust to support small, community-led events. And that, more than anything, feels downright unfair.
A Brief History of Commercial Viewing
In the cable and satellite era, providers recognized that bars, restaurants and hotels wanted to show live sports and news and created hospitality packages to meet that need. Venues paid a modest premium, installed approved receivers and operated under FCC-backed public-performance rights. When Netflix, Disney+ and other streaming services launched, they focused solely on single-household subscriptions and never offered a true “bar plan.” Today, if you need public-screening rights for Netflix content, you must negotiate directly with the show’s underlying rights-holders or work through a clearinghouse like the MPLC. Fees vary by title and distributor—often running into the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars—but there is no standard Netflix-set, seven-figure license.
It’s worth noting that Comcast owns Peacock, which holds the exclusive U.S. streaming rights for Love Island USA. However, streaming platforms like Peacock do not automatically grant public performance rights with a standard subscription. Bars that show live TV typically rely on commercial cable packages, which include limited public performance rights under their terms, but those rights generally do not cover streaming services unless specifically negotiated.
This instance is not a classic monopoly, but it illustrates how legacy networks raced to clone Netflix’s growth, and in doing so consolidated power and content under a few giant umbrellas. As media continues to shift from cable bundles to streaming platforms, small venues find themselves caught in an ecosystem designed more for deep-pocketed enterprises.
Call for Fair Access
The Fourteenth Amendment promises equal protection under the law, a principle that courts have long interpreted to include economic fairness. Yet when small studios or neighborhood cafés face the same six-figure licensing demands as major arenas, that promise rings hollow. Cultural gatherings—watch parties, poetry nights, public screenings—are an essential part of community life. They foster dialogue, strengthen local ties and give voice to diverse perspectives. Asking a mom-and-pop venue to write a Hollywood-scale check before they can host such events shuts the doors on grassroots creativity.
With full clarity, we do not dispute ITV’s right to protect its Love Island intellectual property. Trademark and copyright laws exist to reward innovation, compensate creators and prevent true freeriding. But those protections were never meant to erect walls so high that only the wealthiest can participate. A sliding-scale license structure would allow rights-holders to insist on fair compensation without crushing the very communities they hope to engage. Charging a few hundred dollars for a 30-seat studio and six figures for a stadium respects both the value of the content and the realities of small-venue budgets.
Equitable licensing is not a legal loophole; it is a policy choice. Rights-holders routinely offer tiered rates to schools, libraries and non-profits because they recognize the social benefit of wider access. Why should community centers, independent bookshops and local studios be any different? By adopting community-friendly fee schedules, content providers may build goodwill, expand their audience and demonstrate leadership in corporate citizenship. They would stand for the principle that culture belongs to everyone.
Let it be noted that I personally reached out to ITV’s Brand Protection team, and even to their licensing team to explore a modest community rate, but received no response at the time of publishing this article.
YMDLL’s goal is not to undermine IP law but to show that protecting creativity and fostering community can go hand in hand. When licensing models honor both creators and its communities, everyone wins.
YMDLL’s Response
We removed every “Love Island USA” mention—Eventbrite pages, flyers, digital assets—and added clear disclaimers so no one could mistake our event for an ITV-endorsed party. We then sent our revised materials to ITV’s Brand Licensing Team for review.
We respect intellectual-property law, but needless barriers shut small creators out of culture—much like the PROSPER Act saddles students with new roadblocks. Admittedly, I wouldn’t have uncovered these issues without this cease-and-desist, but all the research I’ve done since receiving that letter has sparked enormous growth and change. At YMDLL, we will continue to follow the rules while speaking up for every artist, student or small business that wants to gather, learn and celebrate pop culture together.
We acknowledge our ignorance. We never meant to break the rules—we simply wanted to host a party celebrating a cultural phenomenon as beloved as the Super Bowl. We regret not thinking through the IP implications, but we won’t apologize for our curiosity or our community spirit. If this unexpected detour hadn’t happened, I wouldn’t be driven to share everything I’ve learned. In America, money may buy power, but knowledge empowers us all.
Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer. I just read a lot.
YMDLL’s TLDR
On July 3, YMDLL hosted our first Poetry Night—an intimate evening of fresh voices and big dreams. A week later, a cease-and-desist arrived from ITV’s Brand Protection Team (echoed by other rights-holders in the industry), insisting our grassroots “Love Island Watch Party” infringed on their intellectual property.
This Is What I Did.
I immediately removed every Love Island reference from social posts, Eventbrite pages and flyers. I switched to plain-text branding and added bold “Not affiliated with ITV” disclaimers.
This Is What They Sent Me.
Their letter cited seventeen broad trademark classes and threatened 'millions in liability' under the Lanham Act—including marks that are not yet registered or enforceable in the U.S. They warned of platform takedowns and federal claims based on trademarks and content that, in some cases, do not yet hold enforceable rights in the U.S.
Why the Cease-and-Desist was Justified.
• Protecting valid copyrights and trademarks is essential to reward creators and maintain the integrity of original work.
• Intellectual-property law underpins innovation, prevents true free-riding and ensures audiences can trust the brands they love.
• Clear rules and fair enforcement help maintain a healthy creative ecosystem—from indie poets to global studios.
Points of Contention.
• Relying on unregistered applications and non-U.S. registrations to threaten a small community event is heavy-handed and misleading.
• Asserting rights over seventeen unrelated categories without regard for actual U.S. filings overstates federal enforcement power.
• Threatening infringement strikes on social platforms before any dialogue chills free expression and undermines genuine community engagement.
• Failing to acknowledge the public’s interest in shared cultural moments turns a valid legal tool into an unfair scare tactic.
My Counsel to Rights-Holders (Opinion).
File timely U.S. copyright registrations for every new episode, then embrace sliding-scale, community-oriented licensing. Charging modest fees for licensing, not Hollywood-scale sums, would uphold IP value and keep pop-culture gatherings accessible to all.
Journalism isn’t just telling the story — it’s standing in it. Cape on. Clogs on. Chocolate in hand.
