Issue No. 032
July 24, 2026
New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IP Briefing · by ESCA Legal
|
|
|
|
| UK fashion company Kai Collective filed a U.S. trademark opposition against Kai Trump's application to register KAI for clothing. |
| § | Kai Trump filed an intent-to-use application for KAI in October 2025, before Kai Collective filed its own federal application. | | § | Kai Collective claims that it has sold clothing under the KAI name in the United States since 2021. | | § | The USPTO approved Trump's application for publication but later refused Kai Collective's application based on the earlier filing. | | § | Kai Collective is asking the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to block Trump's application based on alleged prior use and likely confusion. |
|
| Continue reading → |
| § ESCA Takeaway |
| Personal names, famous personas, team identities, and live broadcasts can all become valuable rights. This issue follows how owners are using oppositions, settlements, appeals, and domain seizures to define and enforce those rights. |
|
|
| More IP Stories |
|
| § Right of Publicity · Closed |
|
|
| Fashion designer Bob Mackie reached agreements in principle to settle lawsuits against JCPenney and longtime business partner Marc Schwartz over an apparel collection bearing Mackie's name, signature, and likeness. |
| § | A Manhattan federal judge dismissed the lawsuits after the parties reported agreement on material settlement terms. | | § | Mackie claimed that he did not authorize or participate in JCPenney's Mackie: Bob Mackie collection. | | § | The claims included false advertising, Lanham Act violations, right of publicity, and consumer deception. | | § | The settlement terms were not disclosed, and final agreements were expected by July 28. |
|
|
Why it matters
Fashion licensing can turn on more than ownership of a company name. The dispute shows how contractual authority, personal endorsement, trademark rights, and publicity rights can overlap when a retailer launches a celebrity-branded collection.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
| § Trademark · Filed |
|
|
| Eminem filed an appeal after Australia's trademark registrar partially removed two SHADY marks in a dispute with beach accessories company Swim Shady. |
| § | Swim Shady sought partial removal of Eminem's Australian registrations based on alleged nonuse during the relevant three-year period. | | § | The registrar found insufficient evidence of direct trademark use in Australia and ordered Eminem to pay the company's legal costs. | | § | Eminem's team lodged the appeal with the Federal Court of Australia's Victoria Registry. | | § | The broader dispute concerns Swim Shady's beach shades and accessories brand and Eminem's long-running Slim Shady persona. |
|
|
Why it matters
Celebrity recognition does not replace jurisdiction-specific proof of trademark use. The appeal tests whether activity around a global persona and related businesses is enough to preserve registered rights in a particular market.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
| § Trademark · Closed |
|
|
| LIV Golf agreed to pay $1 million to settle a Florida federal trademark lawsuit brought by golf tee maker Stinger Golf over the former Stinger GC team name. |
| § | Stinger Golf sued in June 2025, claiming that LIV used the Stinger name for a team and related merchandise despite the company's existing registrations. | | § | The LIV team changed its name to Southern Guards GC before the 2026 season. | | § | Stinger Golf accepted LIV's $1 million offer through a July filing in the Southern District of Florida. | | § | World Wide Golf Brands and the team were also named in the case, while LIV and the team are responsible for the settlement payments. |
|
|
Why it matters
Team names are merchandising assets as well as sports identities. Clearance problems can force both a public rebrand and a monetary settlement when a new league adopts a name already used for related goods.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
QUICK HITS
| § Copyright | The United States seized more than 1,000 domains used to stream 2026 FIFA World Cup matches without authorization through three federal enforcement actions. [source] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not subscribed? Sign up for future editions of Marked by ESCA Legal.
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Published by ESCA Legal. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising; prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
|