IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: TTAB sustains Nike objection for lack of bona fide intent, (Jun 3, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

Applicant sought to use the composite mark B BLUE RIBBON TEAM, but Nike opposed in defense of its mark BLUE RIBBON SPORTS.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sustained an opposition by Nike, Inc. to an intent-to-use application for the composite mark B BLUE RIBBON TEAM for an internet retail outlet, concluding that Applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use its mark in commerce for the identified services at the time of the application. The Board found that Applicant failed to produce any documentation concerning the proposed venture, failed to take any steps to establish the business, and lacked experience in the relevant field. Applicant had argued that it was waiting to take steps toward setting up the business until the resolution of the trademark proceeding, but the Board rejected that claim (Nike, Inc. v. Blue Ribbon Team, No. 91269520 (T.T.A.B. May 29, 2026)).

Background. Applicant, Blue Ribbon Team, filed an intent-to-use application to register the composite mark B BLUE RIBBON TEAM on the Principal Register. The application identified “[o]n-line retail store services” in International Class 35 for dozens of categories of goods, among them “sporting equipment and accessories excluding footwear and clothing.” Opposer, Nike, challenged the application alleging that it owns (1) common law trademark rights in the mark BLUE RIBBON SPORTS that pre-date Applicant’s filing date, and (2) a pending application to register BLUE RIBBON SPORTS for, among other things, “retail store services and on-line retail store services” featuring several types of goods, including “sporting goods and equipment.” Nike filed an amended notice of opposition asserting two claims: (1) priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d); and (2) that, at the time Applicant filed its application, it lacked a “bona fide intention... to use [the] trademark in commerce,” as statutorily required by Section 1(b) of the Act. Applicant denied the salient allegations, the parties filed trial briefs, and Opposer filed a rebuttal brief.

Analysis. The Board sustained Nike’s opposition on the ground that, at the time Applicant filed its application, Applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use its mark in commerce for the identified services. The Board did not reach the Section 2(d) claim.

Evidentiary objections. Applicant raised various objections to testimony and several pieces of evidence that Opposer offered at trial. However, the Board found that none of the objections concern Opposer’s claim that Applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use its mark at the time it filed its application. Because the Board resolved the opposition solely based on the Section 1(b) claim and did not reach the Section 2(d) claim, the Board said it did not need to address the evidentiary objections.

Section 1(b) claim. The Board determined that Applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use its mark in commerce for the identified services when it filed the application. The Board found that Applicant failed to produce any documentation concerning the proposed venture, including after Opposer requested production of various business records, such as documents relating to Applicant’s business plans, supply agreements, physical locations, and sales revenue. The Board also concluded that Applicant had failed to take any steps to establish the business and lacked experience in the relevant field.

Failure to rebut. The Board concluded that Applicant failed to rebut Opposer’s prima facie case that Applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use its mark in commerce for the identified services at the time it filed the application. Applicant had argued that it was waiting to take any steps toward setting up the business, or even write a plan, until the resolution of the instant proceeding. But the Board found that Applicant was seeking to “reserve a right in the mark” first and then plan the business, which is not permitted.

The Case is Opposition No. 91269520.

Judge: NA.

Attorneys: Michael J. Harris (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP) for the Nike, Inc. Luke Santangelo (Santangelo Law Offices, PC) for Blue Ribbon Team.

Companies: Nike, Inc.; Blue Ribbon Team

Cases: Trademark USPTO