IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: NFL star Jackson takes second trademark loss to New Era, (Sep 2, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

The famous quarterback was seeking to use a mark for athletic bags as well as clothing.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustained opposition a second time in favor of New Era Cap, LLC against NFL quarterback Lamar Jackson. The claim was seeking registration of the principal mark ERA 8 BY LAMAR JACKSON. Jackson sought the mark for use on athletic bags, backpacks, duffel bags, sport bags, carry-on bags, travelling bags, bottoms as clothing, footwear, headwear, tops as clothing, and undergarments. The four bases on which New Era challenged the application were: priority and likelihood of confusion; estoppel, res judicata, and claim preclusion; non-ownership of the mark in question; and non-use of the mark with the Class 18 goods (the bag-related claims) (New Era Cap, LLC v. Jackson, No. 91264801 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2026)).

History of parties and disputes. The opposer, New Era, was founded in 1920 and has grown in prominence in athletic circles. It became the official cap of Major League Baseball in 1993, and in 2012, became the official sideline cap of the National Football League. The applicant, Lamar Jackson, is a star quarterback for the Baltimore Ravens of the National Football League who wears jersey number eight. Back in February 2019, Jackson applied to register the mark ERA 8 BY LAMAR JACKSON. Jackson identified these goods in regard to the mark: athletic bags, backpacks, duffel bags, sport bags in Class 18 and bottoms as clothing, footwear, headwear, jackets, shirts, tops as clothing, and undergarments in Class 25.

At that time, New Era opposed the trademark based on priority and likelihood of confusion and ultimately prevailed via a default judgment after Jackson did not respond to the opposition. The default was entered in that matter in September 2019, and Jackson instituted the current proceeding in March 2020.

Argument and Board’s finding. New Era’s argument of claim preclusion ultimately disposed of the majority of the goods for which Jackson sought to use the mark. Establishing claim preclusion required a finding of identity of the parties; an earlier final judgment on the merits of the claim; and a second claim based on the same set of transactional facts as the first claim.

The Board ultimately found that the elements of claim preclusion were satisfied with regard to goods which were identical to Jackson’s previous application, specifically “athletic bags; backpacks; duffel bags; sport bags” in Class 18 and “bottoms as clothing; footwear; headwear; tops as clothing; undergarments” in Class 25. Despite his attempt to argue changed circumstances based on his increasing popularity and fame, Jackson’s claim met the elements of claim preclusion in regard to most goods was thus barred concerning those goods.

That left only carry-on bags and traveling bags remaining, with the Board finding that the mark was not in use with those goods at the time the application was filed. The ruling was based on Jackson’s own admissions in prior discovery pleadings. Accordingly, as the matters were entirely resolved by those two arguments, the issues of likelihood of confusion or non-ownership were not discussed by the Board in ruling for the opposer.

The Case is Opposition No. 91264801.

Attorneys: Michael J. Berchou (Harter, Secrest & Emery LLP) for New Era Cap, LLC. Andrea H. Evans (The Law Firm of Andrea Hence Evans, LLC) for Lamar Jackson.

Companies: New Era Cap, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO