A federal appeals court has ruled that a trademark applicant’s attempt to register judicial-themed marks for athletic apparel failed due to the likelihood of confusion with existing trademarks tied to a prominent baseball player. The decision underscores the complexities of trademark law, particularly in assessing whether marks are distinctive enough to avoid consumer confusion.
Michael Chisena sought to register three marks: two word marks, “ALL RISE” and “HERE COMES THE JUDGE,” and a design mark featuring a baseball field with a scale of justice and gavel. He aimed to use these marks for clothing like t-shirts and athletic uniforms. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s rejection of the applications, citing substantial evidence of confusion with the trademarks of Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) and Aaron Judge, a star Yankees outfielder.
The case centered on priority dates and common law rights. Chisena claimed his word marks had priority dates of July 2017 and October 2017, but the court found that licensed products bearing similar judicial slogans and symbols, including “ALL RISE,” were already in use by June 2017. This established that MLBPA and Judge’s trademarks predated Chisena’s alleged priority dates, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.
Chisena argued that his marks were not inherently distinctive, relying on their association with Judge’s name or nickname. The court rejected this, noting that the marks’ primary significance lay in their judicial connotations rather than their connection to Judge. The court emphasized that the marks functioned as source identifiers, as they were prominently featured in apparel and media tied to Judge’s public persona.
The ruling highlights the critical role of trademark monitoring in preventing conflicts. Businesses must proactively assess existing trademarks, especially in niche markets where symbols or phrases may resonate with broader cultural or industry references. Confusability is not limited to identical marks - it can arise from marks that share similar meanings, visual elements, or associations.
For trademark applicants, the case serves as a reminder that distinctiveness is not solely about uniqueness but also about how consumers perceive the mark in relation to existing brands. Legal clarity in such cases hinges on rigorous evidence of use, priority, and consumer perception.
As the boundaries of trademark law continue to evolve, businesses must balance creativity with caution, ensuring their marks do not inadvertently infringe on established rights. The Chisena case reinforces that trademark protection extends beyond literal similarity, encompassing the broader context of market perception and cultural resonance.
IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, helping businesses stay ahead of potential issues. By tracking registrations across 50+ countries, including the EU, USA, and Australia, IP Defender ensures brands are protected from confusable or rogue registrations. This proactive approach is essential for avoiding costly legal battles and preserving brand integrity.
The stakes of trademark disputes are high, with financial and reputational risks looming for businesses that fail to act. Conflicts like the one involving Chisena’s marks demonstrate how even seemingly unique slogans can lead to legal entanglements. Without a reliable system for identifying overlapping trademarks, companies risk losing control over their brand identity.
IP Defender’s focus on continuous monitoring aligns with the growing need for real-time vigilance in trademark management. By leveraging advanced technologies, the service provides businesses with the tools to safeguard their intellectual property while navigating the complexities of global trademark law. This level of protection is crucial for brands seeking to maintain their market position and avoid the pitfalls of unintentional infringement.