IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—11th Cir.: Eleventh Circuit revives cheerleading organization's trademark claims, finding genuine dispute over marks' distinctiveness, (Jun 25, 2026)

By Wendy Biddle, J.D.

Deciding whether the marks were descriptive and have acquired secondary meaning could not be resolved at summary judgment.

A sanctioning organization that governs and organizes competitive cheerleading and dance sued a competitive cheerleading organization over its use of the words “Worlds” and “The Cheerleading Worlds, of which the sanctioning organization claimed to own the trademark to. The 11th Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the competitive cheerleading organization and remanded for trial, concluding that the district court improperly discarded substantial evidence that could support a finding that two contested cheerleading marks are descriptive and have acquired secondary meaning. The court held that evidence of how competitors, parents, and the media used the contested marks was sufficient to create a triable issue of fact on whether the marks were descriptive with secondary meaning, even though the court agreed the marks lacked the imagination required to be suggestive (U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. v. Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC, No. 24-12653 (11th Cir. Jun. 24, 2026)).

Background. U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. (USASF) is a sanctioning organization governing competitive All Star cheerleading. Since 2004, USASF has hosted an annual championship event at Disney World in Orlando known as "Championship Week," which includes a component competition it calls "The Cheerleading Worlds," or simply "Worlds." The event has grown from 14 teams in 2004 to more than 500 teams, over 10,500 athletes, and an estimated 25,000 spectators annually.

USASF claims ownership of two marks in connection with that event: THE CHEERLEADING WORLDS, registered on the USPTO's Supplemental Register, and WORLDS, claimed under common law. Both a Principal Register application and a design mark application remain pending.

The defendants, Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC and its owners, all formerly affiliated with USASF, began promoting a competing All Star season-end championship in 2020 called the "Allstar World Championship" or "Allstar Worlds." That event is held around the same time as USASF's Championship Week and nearby, at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando. USASF sued in the Middle District of Florida in December 2021, alleging federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, and civil conspiracy.

During pretrial proceedings, Open Cheer filed an answer that included a general denial of the distinctiveness of USASF's marks, as well as an affirmative defense asserting that the marks were merely descriptive, lacked secondary meaning, or were generic. The parties jointly moved to dismiss that affirmative defense with prejudice. Open Cheer later moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that the marks were not sufficiently distinctive to warrant protection. The district court held that Open Cheer was not barred from raising distinctiveness at summary judgment, found both marks to be generic as a matter of law, and entered judgment for Open Cheer on all counts. USASF appealed.

Appeal. The court addressed three issues on appeal: whether Open Cheer was precluded from contesting distinctiveness after the dismissal of its affirmative defense; whether the marks were suggestive; and whether genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the marks were descriptive with secondary meaning.

Preclusion. The court agreed with the district court that dismissing the affirmative defense with prejudice did not bar Open Cheer from challenging distinctiveness at summary judgment. The court explained that Open Cheer's defense was never a proper affirmative defense to begin with, since it attacked an element of USASF's prima facie case rather than raising a matter extraneous to it. Because Open Cheer had also preserved a general denial of distinctiveness in its answer, the issue remained live after the defective affirmative defense was dismissed. The court characterized the dismissal as a correction of a pleading error, not an adjudication on the merits.

Suggestiveness. On suggestiveness, the court affirmed the district court's conclusion that neither mark was suggestive, conducting its own analysis under both the imagination test and the third-party need test. On the imagination test, the court found that WORLDS requires no imaginative leap to connect it to an international competition, noting that the term functions as shorthand for "World Championship" or "World Competition" and is analogous to terms like "Regionals" or "Nationals." As for THE CHEERLEADING WORLDS, the court found that adding "Cheerleading" as a modifier does little to increase the imaginative work required; a consumer readily understands the phrase to denote an international cheerleading competition. The court distinguished the marks from the mark at issue in Engineered Tax Services v. Scarpello Consulting, 958 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2020), where the term "engineered" carried two plausible meanings and their combination with "tax services" produced a clever double meaning requiring some imagination to unpack. Here, the court found no analogous ambiguity. On the third-party need test, the court found that "Worlds" and "The Cheerleading Worlds" are terms that competitors in the All Star cheerleading space would need to describe similar events, pointing to names like "Junior Cheerleading Worlds," "World Cheerleading Championships," and "World Cup of Cheerleading," and noting that USASF itself uses "Worlds" in connection with a separate competition, "The Dance Worlds."

Secondary meaning. On the question of whether the marks are descriptive with secondary meaning, the Eleventh Circuit parted ways with the district court. The court found that USASF had presented substantial evidence of non-generic use, including social media posts by coaches and teams, testimony from event participants who confused Open Cheer's event with USASF's, news articles from outlets across the country referring to USASF's event as "Worlds" or "The Cheerleading Worlds," references in cheerleading-specific publications, and statements from the individual defendants themselves using the marks to refer to USASF's event, sufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.

The district court had dismissed all of this evidence on the theory that because USASF's event was the only season-ending All Star cheerleading championship before Open Cheer's entry, any public association between the marks and the event was explained by USASF being the sole source, not by source-identifying use of the marks. The Eleventh Circuit rejected that reasoning on two grounds. First, the record suggested there were in fact other season-ending All Star competitions, including an event called "the Summit." Second, and more fundamentally, the court held that no precedent supports a rule that evidence of non-generic use becomes irrelevant simply because only one product of its kind exists on the market. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in USPTO v. Booking.com B.V., 591 U.S. 549 (2020), the court reaffirmed that the test for genericness is rooted in consumer perception and that no per se rule can substitute for that inquiry.

The court also examined the secondary meaning question under the four Conagra factors. It found evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue on each: the marks had been in continuous use since at least 2004; USASF had spent roughly $150,000 annually on promotion for several years and developed a substantial media presence, including livestreams that drew hundreds of thousands of viewers and television coverage on ESPN; those promotional efforts prominently featured the contested marks; and the consumer-facing evidence suggested public association between the marks and USASF's event. The court rejected Open Cheer's argument that secondary meaning could not exist because USASF shared the event with the International All Star Federation, finding that the record established an implied licensing relationship and that the presence of a licensee does not negate secondary meaning.

The court declined to reach the likelihood of confusion analysis because the district court had not addressed it, concluding that the fact-intensive seven-factor inquiry was better suited for initial determination below. The court similarly remanded the claims against the individual defendants, finding that record evidence of their participation in selecting and promoting the allegedly infringing name was sufficient to create a triable issue on personal liability.

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment in its entirety and remanded for further proceedings.

The Case is No. 24-12653.

Judge: Marcus, S.

Attorneys: Marisa Rosen Dorough (Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC) for U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. William Wade Arnold (Underwood Law Firm, PC) for Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC.

Companies: U.S. All Star Federation, Inc.; Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Trademark AlabamaNews FloridaNews GeorgiaNews GCNNews