The First Amendment in the Octagon: How a Microcap's 'Power Spank' is Testing Trademark Law

LAS VEGAS, NV – November 10, 2026 — In the modern attention economy, the line between a principled constitutional stand and a calculated marketing stunt is not just blurred—it is often entirely erased. This reality is currently playing out in the combat sports entertainment sector, where a cease-and-desist letter has sparked a standoff that perfectly encapsulates the evolving strategies of intellectual property warfare.

Lingerie Fighting Championships, Inc. (OTC: BOTY), a Las Vegas-based organizer of theatrical combat events, announced today that it has been served with a legal demand from Schiaffo LLC, the operating company behind UFC chief executive Dana White’s slap-fighting venture, Power Slap. The grievance centers on LFC’s opening event segment, cheekily titled "Power Spank."

Where Power Slap features competitors delivering open-handed strikes to each other's faces, LFC's "Power Spank" features women slapping each other on the backside. Schiaffo LLC, which holds the registered trademark for "POWER SLAP" under the toys and sporting goods classification, is demanding that LFC immediately cease using the parody name. LFC, however, is refusing to back down, framing the dispute as a landmark battle for free expression and threatening to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

Beneath the surface of this seemingly absurd dispute lies a fascinating case study in asymmetric corporate warfare, testing the post-2023 limits of trademark law and highlighting how microcap companies leverage legal friction to manufacture viral visibility.

The Economics of Outrage: A Microcap’s Masterclass in Earned Media

To understand LFC’s defiant posture, one must look past the First Amendment rhetoric and into the company's SEC filings. Traded on the OTC Pink market, Lingerie Fighting Championships operates in a precarious financial reality.

Recent financial reports reveal a company navigating significant headwinds. In the first half of 2026, LFC reported a mere $79,656 in revenue—though up 50% year-over-year—against operating expenses approaching half a million dollars. The company's balance sheet is highly leveraged, carrying nearly $5.9 million in current liabilities, including promissory notes in default, against roughly $64,000 in total assets. The filings explicitly disclose "substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern."

Yet, LFC claims to have generated over one billion video views on social media over the past year. The promotion survives not on massive pay-per-view buy rates, but on sheer digital virality. In this context, picking a fight with Dana White—one of the most recognizable and well-capitalized figures in global sports—is not a legal misstep; it is a highly asymmetric marketing strategy.

By publicly defying Schiaffo LLC's cease-and-desist order, LFC has effectively transformed a routine intellectual property dispute into a David-versus-Goliath narrative. The media cycle generated by this standoff provides free, widespread visibility for an OTC-listed stock that recently expanded its share structure to over 5.3 billion outstanding shares and announced plans to add Bitcoin to its treasury. For a company fighting for relevance and capital, the threat of a lawsuit from a sports entertainment giant is perhaps the most lucrative press release it could issue.

Parody on the Ropes: The Post-Jack Daniel’s Legal Landscape

LFC’s legal defense hinges entirely on the concept of parody as protected speech. "Power Spank is LFC’s creation, and it is a parody. Satire and parody have a long, protected place in American expression, and that applies to combat sports entertainment as much as anything else," said Shaun Donnelly, CEO of Lingerie Fighting Championships, in the company's official statement. "We respect Power Slap and its founders, but we will not be bullied into abandoning protected speech."

However, the legal ground for commercial parody is far less stable today than it was a few years ago. Intellectual property analysts point out that LFC’s defense faces a formidable hurdle in the form of the 2023 Supreme Court decision, Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC.

In that case, VIP Products created a dog toy called "Bad Spaniels" that mocked the iconic Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the whiskey maker, significantly narrowing the so-called Rogers test, which traditionally provided heightened First Amendment protection for expressive works using trademarks. The Court determined that when an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a "designation of source" for its own commercial goods or services, standard likelihood-of-confusion analysis applies.

Simply put: "It's a joke" is no longer an automatic shield if the joke is functioning as a brand name. Because LFC is utilizing "Power Spank" as the title for a recurring, commercial entertainment segment within the exact same broad industry—combat sports entertainment—Schiaffo LLC has a plausible argument that the parody crosses the line into commercial trademark dilution.

The Blurring Lines of Combat Entertainment

Adding another layer of complexity to the dispute is the origin of the "Power Spank" segment itself. According to LFC's leadership, the routine was originally conceived as a pointed response after an LFC athlete was hospitalized following her participation in a Power Slap match. By swapping face-slaps for backside-slaps, LFC claims it is offering a critique of Power Slap's safety protocols, arguing that combat sports can be provocative without being inherently dangerous to participants' neurological health.

This satirical critique strengthens LFC’s argument that the segment is a transformative work of commentary. Yet, both entities operate in an ecosystem where the line between legitimate athletic competition and scripted entertainment is increasingly porous. Power Slap has fought hard to legitimize itself, securing regulatory approval from athletic commissions and establishing strict rules to professionalize slap fighting. LFC, conversely, leans entirely into the theatrical, openly acknowledging its events are scripted spectacles.

If Schiaffo LLC chooses to escalate the cease-and-desist into a formal federal lawsuit, the courts will have to untangle whether consumers in the combat sports market could reasonably believe Dana White's organization is sponsoring a scripted lingerie-clad spanking contest. Given the wildly divergent tones of the two products, proving actual consumer confusion may be difficult, even under the stricter post-Jack Daniel's standard.

The Strategic Trap for Corporate Giants

As of now, the dispute remains in the cease-and-desist phase. Dana White and representatives for Power Slap have not publicly indicated whether they intend to file a formal lawsuit in federal court.

This hesitation highlights the strategic trap that nimble, niche operators can set for well-capitalized market leaders. If Schiaffo LLC ignores the parody, it risks setting a precedent of weak trademark enforcement, potentially inviting further unauthorized riffs on its brand. But if Schiaffo LLC sues, it immediately validates LFC's narrative, granting a financially struggling microcap company the exact media spotlight it is desperately seeking.

For corporate strategists navigating the 2026 commercial landscape, the LFC and Power Slap standoff is a potent reminder. In an era where digital eyeballs are the ultimate currency, intellectual property enforcement is no longer just a matter of filing motions and citing case law. It requires a delicate calculation of whether the legal victory is ultimately worth the cost of handing your opponent the microphone.