Imitation game: Topps Helix inserts look an awful lot like Panini's Color Blast

Collectors noticed very familiar design to inserts in 2024 Topps Chrome Baseball

Cover Image for Imitation game: Topps Helix inserts look an awful lot like Panini's Color Blast
The 2024 Topps Helix inserts, left, contrasted with a Panini Color Blast card.

When the 2024 Topps Chrome Baseball set was released this week, it delivered more than Hall of Fame autographs, a new lineup of rookies and chrome finishes.

It also featured what might be the most controversial card design of the year ... and collectors can't seem to stop talking about it.

Initially shared with a small number of collectors to promote on social media, sneak-peek images of the all-new super short-printed Helix insert began appearing Tuesday morning.

Almost immediately, hobbyists pointed out Helix's similarity to Panini America's Color Blast cards, which feature a simple player cutout over a colorful background.

Since its debut in 2019 Prizm Baseball, Panini’s Color Blast design has been deployed across a variety of sports (basketball, baseball, football and soccer) and in popular sets such as Obsidian, Spectra and the flagship Prizm brand.

Where Panini’s Color Blast features vibrant colors through what appear to be clouds or chalk-like textures, Topps’ iteration runs like a paintbrush through its color eruption to create a double helix.

Though well-received by some as an objectively impressive design, Helix’s striking resemblance to Color Blast has frustrated many collectors for its lack of imagination. Fanatics has touted a push to innovate and reshape the trading card industry since acquiring Topps in 2022, and the debut of Helix doesn’t seem to match that spirit.

Along with Helix, Topps borrowed heavily from Panini’s Downtown set to create Home Field Advantage in 2022. Downtown, originally known as From Downtown, debuted in 2016’s Panini Studio Basketball. Years later, the set remains one of Panini’s most coveted.

Panini's Color Blast design, left, makes use of vibrant colors, and Topps' Helix inserts have followed suit.
Panini's Color Blast design, left, makes use of vibrant colors, and Topps' Helix inserts have followed suit.

Innovation is difficult, so it’s not uncommon to see the world’s most successful companies simply copy what their competitors are doing right. Trading cards are no different, and the major manufacturers have been doing it for about as long as the hobby has existed.

Hobbyists have gone as far as to call for legal action on different occasions, but the reality is manufacturers are all guilty when it comes to the imitation game.

While Topps might have recently created lookalikes for two of Panini’s signature sets, Panini has a track record of doing the same.

One of the most popular inserts in Panini’s 2020 Phoenix Football, En Fuego drew major inspiration from a set with the same name from 1996 Season’s Best Basketball. That same Phoenix Football release also featured a Flame Throwers insert, another throwback to a set collectors might remember from 1995 Finest Baseball.

To date, manufacturers have mostly reluctantly accepted the fact some of their best designs will be recreated by a competitor.

According to Paul Lesko, a plaintiff's litigator who has become known as the “hobby lawyer,” there are ways for trading card manufacturers to protect their designs, but tools such as copyrights and trademarks aren’t used often enough and don’t offer the protections many might think.

Used to protect creative works like art, books and music, copyright protections are more limited than many expect. In order to bring forward a copyright infringement lawsuit, a company must already have a copyright registration, and the trading card industry doesn’t file many.

Copyrights also don’t protect ideas, which is where the Helix vs. Color Blast debate gets complicated. The cards designs are similar in concept, though not exact, and a copyright doesn’t protect the idea of a player cutout backed by an explosion of various colors and textures.

The same can be said for Home Field Advantage and Downtown — a copyright doesn’t protect the idea that a player can stand in front of city-related themes and callouts.

“You really have to almost exactly copy it,” Lesko told cllct. “If a jury looks at this, are they going to think it's substantially similar?”

A successful trading card lawsuit over what was considered almost an exact copy was decided last summer when Panini agreed to a $25 million settlement with AAA Sports, Inc. In that case, AAA Sports accused Panini of copying the designs for its Stat Smashers insert set from 1992 and 1993. Shown side-by-side, Panini’s Stat Smashers design from 2020 and 2021 Certified Football used a nearly identical layout on the front and back of the card.

Trademarks are another form of IP protection, but like copyrights, the scope of protection for trading cards can be limited.

Typically used to protect specific branding, Panini has active trademarks for brand names and inserts such as National Treasures, Prizm, Downtown and Color Blast, while Topps has active trademarks for Topps NOW, Bowman University and more.

Those trademarks only protect the names, however, and separate trademarks would have to be filed — with photos — for full protection of the designs themselves.

The period of protections for copyrights and trademarks are also very different. Where copyrights will live for at least 70 years, trademarks must be actively used and renewed every 10 years.

Originally trademarked in 1995, Topps abandoned Flame Throwers in 1996, 14 years before Panini put it to use with Phoenix Football.

“They don’t bring trademark lawsuits over designs like this because no one has trademark registrations to cover card designs, and because of that it’ll be a difficult lawsuit to prevail on,” Lesko said. “There’s also the risk of a lawsuit on the other side.”

Panini and Fanatics both declined cllct’s requests for comment.

Ben Burrows is a reporter and editor for cllct.