Colorado · Big 12Colorado Branding Faces Court Fight Over Sanders’ Prime Logos
Deion Sanders says the marks grew out of his Under Armour deal and his own use of “Prime” and “Truth.” Designer Alan Tipp says he created the logos, surrendered rights after promises of future work, and never received proper compensation.
AUG 22, 2026
Year Sanders says his Under Armour endorsement deal began.
Approximate year Sanders’ Under Armour deal ended.
Amount Tipp is seeking in the lawsuit.
01 · The NewsWhat Happened
A declaration from Deion Sanders was filed Friday in the federal lawsuit over the “Prime” and “Truth” logos. Sanders says he had already used both terms in personal and business ventures when he signed an endorsement deal with Under Armour in 2011. He says the marks remained part of his businesses after that deal ended in or around July 2023, and that nobody objected until Tipp filed suit. Designer Alan Tipp sued Sanders and SMAC Entertainment in January 2025. He claims he created the P21ME and TRUTH logos and was not properly paid. Sanders’ attorney, Michael Kump, filed documents seeking summary judgment, which would end the case without a trial if the judge grants it. The lawsuit is still pending in Nebraska.
02 · The StakesWhy This One Matters
The marks did not stay on a sketchbook. The P21ME logo later appeared on Blenders sunglasses, Nike products and other gear after Sanders took over at Colorado in December 2022. That commercial trail gives the dispute more weight than a disagreement over one design invoice. It also explains why Sanders’ own account matters. He is not describing a logo he encountered last week. He is saying “Prime” and “Truth” were already part of his public identity before the deal at the center of Tipp’s complaint.
03 · The Detail Beneath the HeadlineWhat Most People Are Missing
The part easy to miss is that Tipp’s claim has two separate pressure points. His complaint says he made the logos and signed a work-for-hire agreement effective Aug. 1, 2011, after being promised a place on Sanders’ marketing team. Sanders’ lawyers answer that Under Armour hired Eyeking, the design company where Tipp worked as director of design, to create sunglasses. They also say Tipp has never owned the copyrights. So even if Tipp’s account of the business promise survives, he still has to establish what rights he held in the first place.
04 · The PersonnelWhere This Leaves the Case
The federal judge in Nebraska now has Sanders’ request for summary judgment. That is the immediate fork in the road. If the judge finds the record cannot support Tipp’s claims, the lawsuit ends without a trial. If not, the dispute keeps moving through the claims tied to the work-for-hire agreement, the alleged promises and the use of the marks. Tipp says he gave up his rights because Sanders’ side promised future marketing work. Sanders’ lawyers say the design work ran through Under Armour and Eyeking, and that Tipp never owned the copyrights to surrender. The court has not ruled on any of it. The next filing or order should show whether one part of Tipp’s case can continue even if another part falls away.
05 · The ThesisThe Pate State Read
Sanders’ defense is built around timing and paperwork. His declaration places “Prime” and “Truth” in his own business vocabulary before the Under Armour agreement, then keeps them in use after that relationship ended. His lawyers add a second attack by saying Tipp never held the copyrights. That gives Sanders a way to challenge the case before a jury hears the story about promised marketing work. Tipp’s version still has a path. He says he created P21ME and TRUTH, signed away rights under a work-for-hire agreement, and was induced by promises that were not kept. The judge’s ruling on summary judgment will decide whether this stays a paper fight or becomes a broader courtroom dispute. For Colorado, the football logo stays in place for now. The legal exposure does not.
06 · The Watch ListWhat We're Watching
Will the judge grant Sanders’ summary judgment request?
A grant would end the lawsuit at this stage. A denial would keep the claims alive and push the fight toward a fuller review of the agreement and the alleged promises.
Can Tipp’s promise claim survive apart from the copyright dispute?
The alleged marketing-team promise and the question of who owned the logos are different issues. The next court order may show whether one can continue without the other.
Do the Blenders and Nike uses become part of the next ruling?
Those products show how far the marks traveled after Sanders arrived at Colorado. Any court treatment of that commercial use would reveal how much the later branding history matters.