Blatant Copyright Infringement and Attempts to Discount its Value

A few years ago, the Baltimore Ravens had a contest for a fan to "name the team". One fan sent in a Ravens logo that looks very similar to the logo the Ravens used. See the logo's compared here. You'll notice that the differences are minor. Well, the Supreme Court just declined to review a subsequent hearing where the fan was denied a portion of the sales of apparel with the logo. What I find interesting is the statement from the Ravens at the end of this ESPN article on the subject: "The attorney for the Ravens and the NFL said the logo did not boost sales of merchandise."

Is it just me, or did the NFL just say that their marketing department is a bunch of crap that couldn't sell carrots to starving vegatarians? Otherwise, wouldn't the logo have made some boost to the sales?