Background
Victor Wembanyama — the 7’3” San Antonio Spurs center widely known as “Wemby” — became one of the most talked-about athletes in the world following his record-setting 2023 NBA draft. His nickname, “Wemby,” became instantly recognizable in sports culture. Shortly after his rise to prominence, a company calling itself Wemby Corp. filed a federal trademark application to register “WEMBY” as a trademark for athletic apparel — clothing in the same category routinely licensed by professional athletes to third parties.
The USPTO examining attorney refused registration on two grounds: (1) the mark would falsely suggest a connection with Victor Wembanyama in violation of Lanham Act § 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), because consumers would naturally associate “Wemby” with the player rather than with any independent company; and (2) the mark identifies a living individual — specifically, Wembanyama — without his written consent, in violation of Lanham Act § 2(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c). Wemby Corp. appealed to the TTAB.
The Board’s Holding
In a precedential opinion authored by Administrative Trademark Judge Thomas W. Wellington, the TTAB affirmed both grounds for refusal.
On the § 2(a) false-suggestion-of-connection ground, the Board applied the Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac test: a mark falsely suggests a connection with a person if (1) the mark is the same as, or a close approximation of, the person’s name or identity; (2) the mark would be recognized as such an identification; (3) the person is not connected with the goods sold under the mark; and (4) the person’s name or identity is of sufficient fame or reputation that a connection with the mark would be presumed. All four factors were met: “Wemby” is Wembanyama’s universally recognized nickname; consumers of athletic apparel would immediately associate it with the player; Wembanyama had not authorized or partnered with Wemby Corp.; and his fame as one of the most talked-about NBA players in years made a perceived connection inevitable.
On the § 2(c) living-individual ground, the Board found that “Wemby” identifies a living individual — Victor Wembanyama — and that Wemby Corp. had not submitted evidence of his written consent. The § 2(c) bar applies independently of the § 2(a) false-suggestion analysis; even if a mark accurately reflects a well-known nickname, it cannot be registered without the named individual’s consent.
This opinion is designated as precedential, meaning it will guide future TTAB proceedings where applicants seek to register celebrity nicknames or athlete-associated terms for goods in categories typically licensed by those individuals.
Key Takeaways
- Celebrity nicknames can’t be registered without consent. Even a one-word nickname — if the public has strongly associated it with a specific living person — triggers both the § 2(a) false-suggestion bar and the § 2(c) living-individual bar. Written consent from the named person is required.
- Fame accelerates the false-suggestion analysis. The more famous the athlete, the stronger the inference that consumers will associate a mark resembling their nickname with a licensed product. The TTAB’s precedential ruling underscores that peak-fame athletes receive especially strong protection against unauthorized trademark squatting.
- Two independent grounds, two bites at the apple. The § 2(a) and § 2(c) grounds are independent. Even if an applicant could rebut one, the other provides a separate basis for refusal, making it very difficult to register athlete-associated marks without their consent.
- Precedential status matters. This ruling will bind future TTAB panels in similar cases, making it harder for anyone to register marks incorporating athlete nicknames for apparel without clear consent.
Why It Matters
The rise of athlete-driven merchandise markets has made celebrity-name trademark squatting a persistent problem. When a player like Wembanyama breaks through with immediate global name recognition, there will inevitably be a race by opportunists to register their nickname or likeness-associated terms. This precedential TTAB ruling provides athletes and their licensing teams with a clear tool to block such registrations: both the § 2(a) and § 2(c) grounds are alive and enforceable at the USPTO level, before a squatter ever gets a registered trademark to wield.
For trademark practitioners, the ruling is a reminder to conduct clearance searches not just for likelihood of confusion with existing registrations, but also for whether a proposed mark closely resembles a living celebrity’s known nickname — even if that nickname has never been registered by the celebrity’s own team.