The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision to refuse registration of trademark applications for popular baseball catchphrases, dealing a blow to a pro se appellant who sought to trademark phrases associated with New York Yankees star Aaron Judge.
In *Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Association*, decided Jan. 8, 2026, the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB's refusal to register two standard character marks—'ALL RISE' and 'HERE COMES THE JUDGE'—along with one design mark. The nonprecedential opinion represents the conclusion of a trademark dispute that began with intent-to-use applications filed in 2017.
Michael P. Chisena of Garden City, New York, representing himself without counsel, sought to register the proposed marks on the Principal Register for clothing items including t-shirts, shirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, jerseys, athletic uniforms, and caps. Chisena filed three intent-to-use applications claiming constructive use dates of July 14, 2017, for the character marks.
The case pitted Chisena against formidable opponents: the Major League Baseball Players Association and Aaron Judge himself. The appellees were represented by attorneys from McCarter & English, LLP, including Lori Jane Shyavitz, Alexander Hornat, and Irene Mary Hurtado.
The phrases at the center of the dispute have significant connections to baseball culture, particularly Yankees baseball. 'ALL RISE' became widely associated with Aaron Judge during his rise to stardom as a Yankees outfielder, while 'HERE COMES THE JUDGE' plays on both Judge's surname and his role as one of baseball's premier power hitters.
The Federal Circuit panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Lourie and Hughes, along with District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California sitting by designation, issued the unanimous decision. Judge Lourie authored the opinion affirming the TTAB's ruling.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board had initially refused registration of the marks in a 2023 decision. The TTAB's ruling came after opposition proceedings filed by the Major League Baseball Players Association, which challenged Chisena's applications for the baseball-related phrases.
While the Federal Circuit's opinion is marked as nonprecedential, meaning it cannot be cited as binding authority in future cases, it nonetheless represents a clear victory for professional baseball interests over individual trademark applicants seeking to capitalize on popular sports catchphrases.
The case highlights the challenges faced by individual applicants attempting to secure trademark rights in phrases that may already be associated with professional athletes or sports organizations. The Major League Baseball Players Association, which serves as the collective bargaining representative for all current Major League Baseball players, has significant resources to defend against trademark applications that could interfere with players' commercial interests.
Chisena's decision to proceed pro se, while not uncommon in trademark matters, put him at a disadvantage against the experienced intellectual property attorneys representing the appellees. The case required navigating complex trademark law principles, including questions about the registrability of phrases that may be considered merely informational or that lack sufficient distinctiveness.
The Federal Circuit's affirmance suggests that the TTAB's analysis was legally sound and that Chisena failed to present compelling arguments for why the trademark applications should have been approved. The specific reasoning behind the refusal is not detailed in the available portion of the opinion, but trademark refusals often involve issues such as likelihood of confusion with existing marks, failure to function as trademarks, or descriptiveness concerns.
For the Major League Baseball Players Association and Aaron Judge, the victory preserves their ability to control commercial uses of phrases associated with Judge's career and persona. Professional athletes increasingly rely on trademark protection to secure exclusive rights to catchphrases, nicknames, and other intellectual property that can be monetized through endorsements and merchandise.
The case also demonstrates the ongoing tension between individual entrepreneurs seeking to capitalize on popular culture phenomena and established sports organizations that view such attempts as infringing on their commercial territories. Similar disputes have arisen across various sports involving attempts to trademark phrases, celebrations, or other elements associated with professional athletes.
While this decision represents the end of Chisena's challenge at the Federal Circuit level, the broader issues surrounding trademark rights in sports-related phrases continue to evolve as the commercial value of athletic personalities grows. The ruling reinforces the importance of having strong legal representation and clear trademark strategies when attempting to secure rights in phrases that may have existing commercial associations.
The Federal Circuit's jurisdiction over trademark appeals from the TTAB makes it a critical venue for resolving disputes over intellectual property rights, particularly in cases involving high-profile commercial interests like professional sports organizations.