In Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Pa. 2003), a federal district court dismissed Jamil Blackmon’s suit against NBA guard Allen Iverson over the nickname “The Answer,” holding that Iverson’s alleged verbal promise to pay 25% of related merchandise proceeds was unenforceable past consideration and that the nickname idea was not novel enough to support a property claim.1Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602
What Blackmon Said Happened
Blackmon met Iverson in 1987. In July 1994, while Iverson was in college, Blackmon suggested he adopt “The Answer” as a nickname, describing him as the solution to what was troubling professional basketball. Blackmon later worked with a graphic designer on logos built around the phrase. According to Blackmon, Iverson verbally promised that same evening to pay him 25% of any proceeds from merchandise using the nickname, slogan, or logo.1Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602
Years later, after Iverson turned “The Answer” into a signature brand, Blackmon sued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, bringing claims for breach of contract, idea misappropriation, and unjust enrichment.1Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602
Why the Verbal Promise Was Unenforceable
A contract needs consideration: each side must give up something of value as part of the same bargain. When a benefit has already been conferred before any promise to pay is discussed, that benefit counts as past consideration, and under Pennsylvania law a later verbal promise resting on it is not enforceable.2Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602 – Section: B. Breach of Contract
That framing sank the breach-of-contract claim. Blackmon had already shared the nickname before any financial terms came up, so the 25% promise that followed had nothing new exchanged for it. Pennsylvania does allow a promise supported only by past consideration to be enforced, but only if it is in writing and contains a specific statement that the signer intends to be legally bound. Iverson’s alleged promise was spoken, not written, so it fell short of that statutory path.3FindLaw. 33 P.S. § 62Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602 – Section: B. Breach of Contract
Why the Idea Itself Was Not Protectable
Blackmon’s misappropriation claim ran into a separate barrier. To be treated as property in Pennsylvania, an idea must be both novel and concrete. Novelty means genuinely original, not something already in common circulation.4Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602 – Section: A. Idea Misappropriation
The court found “The Answer” failed that test. Giving an athlete a nickname and selling merchandise around it are ordinary practices, and calling a talented player the answer to a sport’s problems was not an inventive step. The logo work Blackmon commissioned did not change the analysis, because the underlying concept was too generic to belong to any one person. Without novelty, there was no property right for Iverson to have taken.4Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602 – Section: A. Idea Misappropriation
Unjust Enrichment and the Dismissal
The unjust enrichment claim, which asks a court to order payment when one person has unfairly benefited from another, failed for two connected reasons: the nickname was not novel enough to count as protectable property, and Blackmon had originally offered it in 1994 without expecting payment. The value in “The Answer,” the court reasoned, came from Iverson’s own fame rather than any original contribution by Blackmon.5Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602 – Section: C. Unjust Enrichment
The court granted Iverson’s motion to dismiss, ending every claim before trial. Even accepting Blackmon’s account of the 1994 conversation as true, none of his theories stated a claim the law would recognize.6Justia. Blackmon v. Iverson, 324 F. Supp. 2d 602 – Section: ORDER