Federal Judges Rule for Baseball’s Judge
The actual judges of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of baseball’s Aaron Judge. In a case that shows how trademark rights can develop, the court rejected third party’s applications to register ALL RISE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and a baseball diamond logo that No. 99 said could be confused with Judge’s trademark rights.
First, a little history:
2017 was a good year for Aaron Judge, to say the least. The New York Yankees outfielder was the unanimous choice for American League Rookie of the Year, finished the season with a record-breaking 52 homeruns, and led the Bronx Bombers to the American League Championship series, where they narrowly lost to the Houston Astros.
And in the fine tradition of sports nicknames playing on an athlete’s name, Yankees fans embraced the judicial theme, with slogans like “Here comes the Judge” and “All rise” following Judge onto the field throughout the season.
Shortly after the 2017 MLB All-Star Game, Michael Chisena filed U.S. trademark applications for ALL RISE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and a few months later, an image of a gavel and scales of justice superimposed onto a baseball diamond. Chisena is an individual from Long Island, New York, and has no connections to the Yankees or Judge.
Judge objected. Along with the Major League Baseball Players Association, he filed oppositions to the trademark applications, requesting that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reject Chisena’s applications. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO (“TTAB”) ruled that Judge and the MLBPA had prior rights in the two marks, the public was likely to be confused, and Chisena’s applications should not be permitted to register.
Chisena appealed, and, in January 2026, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the TTAB’s decision.
Most of us will never match Judge’s on-field success, but businesses can learn some lessons about winning in the trademark game:
Brands can have trademark rights without registration.
In the U.S., it isn’t necessary to own a trademark registration to prove trademark rights.
While Judge did not own any trademark registrations for the marks in question, it did not prevent him from obtaining a positive result. It is a good reminder that U.S. trademark law protects consumers from being confused and recognizes trademark rights arising from the use—not only the registration—of a mark. The way a trademark is presented to consumers is an important part of building trademark rights. Even without a trademark registration, Judge and the players association were able to file a significant amount of evidence with the TTAB, like images of licensed apparel, showing how Judge used HERE COMES THE JUDGE, ALL RISE, and the judicial theme, in order to show their prior trademark rights.
Priority comes first.
Chisena’s arguments centered around priority. That is, he argued that he was using his claimed trademarks before Judge and the players association used the various judicial themed slogans. Most trademark disputes come down to who was using a mark first, and companies often need to show records of their early development and use of their marks. In this case, the TTAB and then the court of appeals found that it was Judge.
Registration isn’t necessary, but it can make a big difference.
Because Judge and the players association didn’t own trademark registrations, the evidence of use of ALL RISE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and other judicial-themed words and images formed a crucial part of the case for Judge and the players association. They needed to prove both that they had earlier rights than Chisena (for priority) how the public perceived Judge’s trademarks (for confusion).
However, a federal trademark registration establishes a presumption of the owner’s rights to a mark and credits the owner with priority at least as early as the filing date for the registration. This is a major league advantage in proving trademark rights.
Chisena has two strikes, but he can appeal to the Supreme Court. Is it the seventh inning stretch or game over?