Recent developments in trademark law reflect a dual trend toward greater front-end rigor in prosecution and increasingly nuanced guidance from the courts in enforcement. On the prosecution side, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued notices recently of its continued aggressive efforts to purge the trademark register of fraudulent and invalid filings, which combined with fee restructuring eliminated the cheaper TEAS Plus option and imposed additional fees for non-compliance. Additionally, decisions reinforced common law trademark rights over first to file and the importance of maintaining robust documentation of use in a decision in favor of the New York Yankees outfielder and slugger Aaron Judge. As a result, applicants should be more careful and be aware the actions of their representatives are taken as actions of the applicant and to be very diligent in documenting use. On the litigation side, courts continue to refine core doctrines governing likelihood of confusion, equitable relief, personal jurisdiction, and cybersquatting, offering important guidance on how far trademark rights extend and what evidentiary showings matter most. Together, these developments underscore a common theme: trademark protection now demands greater precision at every stage, from filing and examination to enforcement and remedies.
Recent Developments in Trademark Prosecution
Trademark filings at the USPTO hit all-time highs in the early 2020’s, due in part to an influx of filings from China. The agency stepped up its efforts against fraudulent filings, adding identity verification and authentication procedures for logging into USPTO platforms. The USPTO has sanctioned foreign firms who submitted filings without proper qualifications, which previously led to more than 52,000 cancelled trademark applications and registrations in 2025. On May 12, 2026, the USPTO published a notice of its continued work to purge the register of fraudulent and invalid filings. The agency stated in the notices that it was introducing orders to combat fraud in trademark proceedings and e highlighted the actions taken to remove fraudulent and otherwise invalid marks from the federal register. The USPTO also noted that it had issued 11 administrative orders in the past six months targeting the removal of around 10,500 trademark applications and registrations for a variety of reasons, including forged attorney signatures and filing firm tactics like inventing non-existent trademark registration requirements and fees, consistent with its anti-fraud efforts. A closer look at the USPTO administrative order docket shows that a Chinese entity was indeed sanctioned in April 2026 for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and “widespread and coordinated pattern of activity intended to conceal their involvement in trademark matters and circumvent USPTO Rules.” Final Order for Sanctions, In re: Shenzhen Huanyee Intellectual Property Co. Ltd., U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (Apr. 16, 2026). The enforcement wave confirms the continued efforts to crack down on fraud at the USPTO.
In another recent case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decision in favor of Aaron Judge, a New York Yankees star player, and the Major League Players Association (MLPA) related to the phrase “ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE. Chisena v. Major League Players Assoc. and Aaron Judge, 2026 WL 60319 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026). The applicant had filed an intent to use trademark application in connection with clothing items with the constructive first use dates being October 12, 2017, the date the application was filed. Mr. Judge and MLPA opposed the application based on their priority of use including evidence of licensed products bearing the same phrase or similar ALL RISE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and THE JUDGE’S CHAMBERS, also used on apparel going back to June of 2017. The court agreed that Mr. Judge and the MLPA had priority of use in U.S. commerce based on substantial testimony and documentation. This case highlights the importance of documenting first use (even if only by a few months) and reaffirms that common law rights trump even where the senior users was not the first to file.
Recent Developments in Trademark Litigation
On the litigation side, federal appellate courts have issued several noteworthy decisions in recent months addressing likelihood of confusion, the scope of remedies, equitable defenses, personal jurisdiction, and cybersquatting. Below are the key developments that in-house teams should be tracking.
1. Likelihood of Confusion and Remedies
In Trojan Battery Company, L.L.C. v. Golf Carts of Cypress, L.L.C., 2026 WL 1261993 (5th Cir. May 8, 2026), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a finding of trademark infringement and a $4.7 million disgorgement award but vacated a permanent injunction as overbroad. Trojan Battery, which is a market leader for OEM and after-market golf-cart batteries under the TROJAN® mark, sued after the defendants began selling golf carts under the “TROJAN-EV” brand. In reviewing the district court’s decision, the Fifth Circuit found that five of six contested factors on likelihood of confusion favored the plaintiff, and the defendants conceded two other likelihood of confusion factors. Id. at *10. Notably, it reversed the district court on actual confusion—finding five instances over two and a half years of concurrent sales “ultimately insufficient”—but affirmed infringement anyway, reiterating that actual confusion is not required. Id. In evaluating the damages award, the court applied the Lanham Act's burden-shifting framework for disgorgement under § 1117(a) and emphasized that the defendants’ willful infringement supported disgorgement as both compensation and deterrence. Id. at *12-13. However, the court vacated the injunction because it barred the defendants from using “TROJAN” on any product regardless of industry, holding that an injunction must be no broader than necessary to prevent the deception and the “safe distance” rule did not justify a broad injunction in this case. Id. at *13-14.
2. Unclean Hands in Franchise Disputes
In Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. v. Atomic Pawz Inc., 170 F.4th 546 (6th Cir. 2026), the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction sought by a franchisor against thirty-one former franchisees, applying the unclean hands doctrine. The court found that Fetch! had “aggressively and dishonestly marketed” its franchise model—removing distinctions between franchise tiers from disclosure documents, using misleading revenue projections, and cutting legacy franchisees off from its software system without notice. Id. at 554-57. This misconduct was sufficient to “close[] the doors of equity.” Id. at 556 (quoting Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Maint. Mach. Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945)). The court also clarified that the proper standard for irreparable harm is the federal “likely” standard from Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008), expressly abrogating district court decisions that had required clear and convincing evidence, which had been improperly adopted from an Ohio Court of Appeals case. Id. at 558. For in-house counsel on both sides of franchise disputes, Fetch! is a powerful reminder that a franchisor’s marketing tactics in selling and supporting its system can impact its ability to obtain injunctive relief.