Priority in Trademark Law: Lessons from the Aaron Judge Case
January 12, 2026
By: Matthew J. Youssef, Esquire and Eddie L. Healv, IV, Esquire
The recent federal appeals court decision involving New York Yankees slugger Aaron Judge offers business executives a valuable tutorial in the fundamentals of trademark law. At its core, the case demonstrates a principle that companies too often learn the hard way: in trademark disputes, priority of use matters more than filing date, and the evidence you preserve today may determine ownership tomorrow.
The Timeline That Decided Everything
On July 10, 2017, Aaron Judge won the Home Run Derby before a national television audience. Four days later, Michael P. Chisena, a Nassau County, New York resident, filed trademark applications for "All Rise," "Here Comes the Judge," and a baseball-diamond-with-gavel design—all for use on apparel.
The timing raised immediate questions. By mid-July 2017, Judge's meteoric rookie season had already generated substantial licensed merchandise featuring judicial-themed slogans and imagery. That commercial reality, meticulously documented and presented as evidence, ultimately proved dispositive before both the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and, more recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
What the Board Found—and Why It Mattered
In its precedential April 2023 decision, the TTAB examined the extensive evidence Judge and the Major League Baseball Players Association presented. The Board catalogued licensed products bearing Judge's name alongside phrases like "All Rise" and "Here Comes the Judge," complete with judicial symbols such as gavels and courthouse imagery. Crucially, these products entered the market before Chisena's filing dates of July 14, 2017, for the word marks and October 12, 2017, for the design mark.
The evidence extended beyond merchandise. In May 2017, the Yankees opened "The Judge's Chambers"—a specially designated section in right field where fans received black robes and foam gavels emblazoned with "All Rise." Contemporary media coverage reinforced the association: Sports Illustrated's May 2017 cover featured the "All Rise!" headline, while numerous outlets played on the judicial wordplay.
Perhaps most telling was testimony from the printer Chisena hired to produce test-market shirts in 2018. When asked whose name came to mind upon seeing the slogans, the printer responded simply: "Aaron Judge."
Based on this record, the Board sustained the opposition on likelihood-of-confusion grounds under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, finding that Judge and the MLBPA had established prior use of the marks on overlapping categories of apparel.
The Federal Circuit Affirms
On appeal, decided in January 2026, Chisena chose not to challenge the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. Instead, he focused on priority and distinctiveness, arguing that the marks were not inherently distinctive and that Judge had failed to establish proprietary rights.
The Federal Circuit rejected these arguments. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Alan D. Lourie found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that Judge had used the marks before Chisena's filing dates. The court emphasized that phrases like "All Rise" and "Here Comes the Judge" functioned as arbitrary marks when applied to apparel—they did not describe the clothing itself but rather identified Judge as the source.
The court also addressed Chisena's contention that the marks merely reproduced Judge's surname. The panel agreed with the Board that consumers would perceive a dual meaning, recognizing both the judicial and surname significance—a play on words that gave the marks their commercial appeal and legal protection.
Practical Takeaways for Business Owners
This case offers several lessons for companies seeking to build and protect brand value:
Priority depends on use, not filing. Under U.S. trademark law, rights accrue from actual commercial use, not from filing an application. While registration provides important procedural advantages, the party who used a mark first in commerce generally prevails in a priority dispute. Companies that delay filing while their brands gain market traction expose themselves to opportunistic applications from third parties.
Document everything, immediately. The Judge case turned on contemporaneous evidence: product approvals, media coverage, promotional events, and licensing agreements—all dated and preserved. Business owners should maintain organized records of when and how they began using marks, including samples of early marketing materials, sales records, and social media posts. These materials may prove critical years later.
Evidence quality matters as much as quantity. The MLBPA presented testimony from licensees, media accounts, photographs from stadium promotions, and even a printer's candid identification of the source. This multilayered proof painted an undeniable picture of public association between Judge and the judicial-themed marks. Scattered or poorly documented use rarely carries the same weight.
Act quickly when brand value emerges. The gap between Judge's breakout performance and Chisena's applications was measured in days. Companies experiencing rapid brand growth—whether from viral success, media attention, or market expansion—should immediately assess whether their key identifiers are protected. Waiting for "the right time" to file can mean losing rights to someone who files first.
Questionable timing invites scrutiny. The Board noted that Chisena's filing the day after Judge won the Home Run Derby was "eyebrow-raising" and that his claims of good faith "strain credulity." While bad faith is not required to defeat an application, it can influence how courts and examiners view the evidence and credibility of witnesses.
The Broader Implications
The Aaron Judge case joins a growing body of precedent addressing trademark disputes involving athlete names and associated phrases. As name, image, and likeness rights continue to evolve—particularly following recent changes in collegiate athletics—these issues will become increasingly common.
For business executives, the lesson is straightforward: trademark protection begins with use and is secured through timely registration and meticulous record-keeping. The entrepreneur who waits to "see if the brand catches on" before filing may discover that someone else has already claimed it. In the unforgiving world of trademark priority, the race belongs not to the swift but to the documented.
Companies would do well to remember that in trademark law, as at Yankee Stadium, timing is everything—and the evidence you preserve today may determine who owns your brand tomorrow.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's precedential decision in Major League Baseball Players Association v. Chisena (April 12, 2023) is available through the USPTO's TTABVUE system. The Federal Circuit's opinion in Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Association (January 2026) is available through the court's electronic filing system.
