New Era Cap, LLC v. Lamar Jackson — TTAB Blocks ERA 8 Trademark Application

Background

Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson applied to register ERA 8 BY LAMAR JACKSON for clothing, footwear, headwear, and several kinds of bags. New Era Cap opposed the application. It relied in part on an earlier opposition between the same parties involving the identical mark, in which the Board entered a default judgment against Jackson after he did not answer.

New Era also argued that Jackson had not used the mark on the Class 18 bag products when he filed the new use-based application in March 2020. Jackson maintained that his later athletic success and expanded business activity distinguished the new application and that the earlier default should not control.

The Court’s Holding

The TTAB sustained the opposition. It held that claim preclusion barred registration for the goods that overlapped with Jackson’s earlier application: athletic bags, backpacks, duffel bags, sport bags, and the listed clothing products. A default judgment can be a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, and the later application involved the same parties, the identical mark, and the same transactional facts for those goods.

Jackson’s later achievements and promotional activity did not create a new trademark claim for the same goods. The Board explained that allowing an applicant to refile an essentially identical application after a final judgment would undermine the finality that claim preclusion protects.

Claim preclusion did not reach carry-on bags and travelling bags because those goods were absent from the earlier application. But the application still failed for the entire Class 18 list because the evidence showed that the mark was not in use on any of those bag products when the use-based application was filed. The Board therefore did not need to decide New Era’s likelihood-of-confusion or ownership theories.

Key Takeaways

• A TTAB default judgment can bar a later application involving the same parties, mark, and goods.
• Later fame or commercial success does not erase the preclusive effect of an earlier final judgment.
• A use-based trademark application must be supported by actual use in commerce for the identified goods on its filing date.
• Adding new goods may avoid claim preclusion, but it does not cure a separate failure to use the mark on those goods.

Why It Matters

The decision highlights two independent risks for brand owners. First, ignoring a TTAB opposition can have consequences beyond the immediate application because a default may block a later attempt to register the same mark. Second, applicants must verify product-by-product use before filing under Section 1(a); a successful brand in one category does not establish use for every item listed in an application.

For sports and celebrity brands, expanding notoriety after an initial filing does not reset the procedural record. Trademark portfolios need coordinated prosecution, accurate use evidence, and prompt responses to Board proceedings.

Surfaced via Law360 IP.