UNITED STATES: Yankees Slugger Bats One Out of the Federal Circuit Ballpark

The Federal Circuit has affirmed a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision in favor of New York Yankees star outfielder and slugger Aaron Judge and the Major League Players Association (MLPA). It held that Mr. Judge and the MLPA had priority of use in U.S. commerce for the phrases ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and for a third design mark depicting a baseball diamond with a scale-of-justice overlay, see below.  This entitled them to judgment in an opposition proceeding against Michael Chisena’s federal trademark applications to register those phrases and that design, as affirmed in Chisena v. Major League Players Assoc. and Aaron Judge, 2026 WL 60319 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026).  

Mr. Chisena filed intent-to-use trademark applications to register the two phrases on July 14, 2017, and also filed an application for the design mark on October 12, 2017. 

The three applications listed goods in International Class 25 for “clothing, namely, t-shirts, shirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, jerseys, athletic uniforms, and caps.” The filing dates of Mr. Chisena’s applications established his constructive first-use dates.  

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the opposers had priority of use based on substantial testimony and documentation. The opposers’ evidence included officially licensed products bearing Judge’s personal indicia and judicial-related phrases or symbols going back to at least June 2017, including a gavel, courthouse image, and the scales of justice. Such prior phrases included ALL RISE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and THE JUDGES’ CHAMBERS, all used for apparel.  

The court found that the Notices of Opposition contained sufficient detail to give Mr. Chisena fair notice of the opposers’ “claimed ownership of a mark that served as a basis for opposing Chisena’s proposed marks.” The court affirmed the Board’s finding that the opposers’ marks were inherently distinctive, which again was supported by substantial evidence showing the marks were arbitrary “because they do not describe the apparel on which they appear.” Further, the court agreed with the Board that the opposers’ marks were distinctive surnames and nicknames because their primary significance was a judicial connotation or a dual meaning, “playing on both the judicial and surname meanings.”  

Lastly, the court rejected Mr. Chisena’s argument that the opposers’ marks were merely ornamental and did not function as marks. It noted that a trademark must function as a source identifier, and a determination of whether a mark functions as a source identifier focuses on how the marks were used in the marketplace and how consumers perceived them. The opposers submitted substantial evidence demonstrating that consumers encountering the marks on apparel would associate the goods with Mr. Judge. This was also supported by media articles referring to Mr. Judge using the marks and indicating a connection with him.  

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA, except where it has taken an official position. 

© 2026 International Trademark Association