A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit underscored the critical role of litigation strategy and procedural rigor in trademark disputes. The case centered on a battle over the mark I Am More Than an Athlete, with Uninterrupted IP LLC (“UNIP”) emerging victorious after a strategic maneuver that shifted the legal dynamics.
The dispute began years earlier, pitting UNIP - a media company co-founded by LeBron James - against Game Plan Inc., a nonprofit focused on youth sports empowerment. Game Plan had registered the mark in 2018 for charitable fundraising services, citing use since 2017. UNIP, however, had filed intent-to-use applications in 2018 for similar marks, claiming priority.
A critical development occurred when a third party, More Than an Athlete, Inc. (“MTAA”), intervened. MTAA, a small business founded in 2013 by DeAndra Alex, had been using the More Than an Athlete mark for clothing and wristbands. It also held a 2013 registration for publicity and sales promotion services.
In 2019, UNIP acquired MTAA’s rights through a deal that included assigning all goodwill and the mark. The Board and Federal Circuit later validated this assignment, ruling it was not an “assignment in gross” and that MTAA’s continuous use of the mark in commerce since 2013 supported UNIP’s claim. This move provided UNIP with a strategic advantage, enabling it to challenge Game Plan’s registration on grounds of likelihood of confusion.
Game Plan’s defense hinged on the argument that the MTAA assignment was invalid due to its timing during an opposition proceeding. However, the court found Game Plan’s counsel failed to provide evidence to substantiate this claim. The assignment agreement included standard language for transferring goodwill, and the tribunals concluded the transfer was valid.
The case also highlighted procedural missteps. Game Plan had submitted evidence during a prior motion but failed to reintroduce it during the trial. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision to exclude such evidence, emphasizing that parties must adhere to procedural deadlines.
For businesses navigating trademark disputes, the case serves as a strategic lesson. Acquisitions, such as UNIP’s purchase of MTAA’s rights, can alter litigation outcomes. Yet, procedural oversights - like failing to submit evidence at the correct stage - can undermine even the strongest claims.
Trademark law’s complexity lies in balancing rights, evidence, and procedural compliance. Confusability remains a central issue, but the outcome often hinges on how parties manage their legal strategies. Monitoring trademark use and anticipating oppositions are no longer optional - they are essential to protecting brand equity in a crowded marketplace.
IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, offering businesses a proactive way to stay ahead of potential threats. By leveraging advanced technologies, the service helps companies identify and address risks before they escalate into costly legal battles.
The urgency of trademark monitoring cannot be overstated. A single oversight can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, or the loss of a brand’s identity. With IP Defender, businesses can ensure their intellectual property is protected around the clock, without the need for legal expertise or manual oversight.
The landscape of trademark protection is evolving rapidly, and those who adapt first will have a competitive advantage. Whether through strategic acquisitions or continuous surveillance, the goal remains the same: safeguarding brand value in a world where imitation is often mistaken for innovation.