Here’s what’s trending in trademarks this month: New Balance sues French rival Decathlon in Boston federal court over a running-shoe logo it says is unmistakably an “N”; the TTAB ends a six-year fight by blocking Lamar Jackson’s ERA 8 BY LAMAR JACKSON application on claim preclusion; a Michigan personal injury firm wins a precedential ruling that it, not the associate who conceived the brand, owns the BIRTH JUSTICE logo; Taylor Swift’s April sound-mark filings are back in the conversation as anti-deepfake tools; and USPTO Director John Squires reports trademark filings are up 11 percent year over year.
New Balance v. Decathlon: when a “K” starts looking like an “N”
On September 15, 2026, New Balance Athletics, Inc. filed a trademark infringement complaint against Decathlon America LLC and its affiliated Decathlon SA units in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. See New Balance Athletics, Inc. v. Decathlon America LLC, No. 1:26-cv-14235 (D. Mass.). The complaint targets Decathlon’s Kiprun performance running shoes, which use a stylized letter on the side panel that Decathlon describes as a “K” for its Kiprun house brand. New Balance identified eight Kiprun models in the complaint and pointed to a mirror-image version of the K that, in its words, is “unmistakably an N.” New Balance seeks injunctive relief, a recall, destruction of infringing product, and damages.
New Balance has used its N mark on footwear since the 1970s and holds multiple federal registrations for the letter N on athletic footwear. The complaint says the company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars promoting the N mark and has sold hundreds of millions of pairs of shoes bearing it. In January 2026, New Balance asked Decathlon to change the design; Decathlon declined, taking the position that the mark is a K. New Balance called that position “half true at best,” relying on YouTube videos, Instagram reels, and Reddit threads in which viewers openly identified the design as an N.
For trademark counsel, three points from this filing are worth noting. First, “we call it a K” is not a defense that does much for a defendant in a stylized mark case. The Lanham Act tests whether ordinary consumers, exposed to the mark in the marketplace, are likely to be confused about source. If the mirror-image treatment of a K reads as an N to a meaningful segment of consumers, the technical letter identification is close to irrelevant. Here, New Balance did the work of putting consumer perception into the complaint by citing organic social-media commentary. That is a useful roadmap for any brand owner considering an enforcement action: gather the reactions first, plead them second. Second, foreign-based competitors selling into the U.S. through owned online channels and third-party retailers do not escape U.S. trademark exposure. Kiprun began selling in the U.S. in April through its own website and specialty retailers such as Running Warehouse and Run Moore. That is enough for jurisdiction and venue purposes. Third, New Balance’s prior settlements with Michael Kors and Nautica, plus a 2017 judgment against Chinese shoemakers over the same mark, establish a real pattern of enforcement. For brand owners, enforcement history strengthens the fame analysis and makes future settlements easier to negotiate.
Claim preclusion ends the six-year fight over Lamar Jackson’s ERA 8 BY LAMAR JACKSON application
On August 27, 2026, in New Era Cap Company, Inc. v. Lamar Jackson, Opposition No. 91264801 (TTAB Aug. 27, 2026) [not precedential], the Board sustained New Era’s opposition to Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson’s application to register ERA 8 BY LAMAR JACKSON for athletic bags, backpacks, duffel bags, sport bags, carry-on bags, and travelling bags in International Class 18. The Board applied claim preclusion (res judicata) based on a default judgment entered against Jackson in a 2020 New Era opposition to a similar Jackson application. Notably, the Board did not decide the underlying likelihood-of-confusion question, which had been the heart of the six-year fight. See Gerben IP for background.
Jackson made three arguments against preclusion. He argued that his new application added products (carry-on and traveling bags) not covered by the earlier application. He argued that ERA 8 BY LAMAR JACKSON was a different mark from the ERA 8 applied for previously because it now included his name and uniform number as part of the mark. And he pointed to his significant post-2019 personal fame as a factor that changed the mark strength analysis under DuPont. The Board rejected each argument. The additional bag products were substantially related to goods in the prior application. Adding “BY LAMAR JACKSON” to the same mark did not create a new mark for preclusion purposes; the marks shared the same commercial impression. And post-default marketplace developments do not, standing alone, defeat preclusion when the parties, marks, and goods are essentially the same.
Two practical points for practitioners. First, a default judgment in a TTAB proceeding is a final judgment on the merits for preclusion purposes. If a client fails to answer, the consequences can reach far beyond that one abandoned application. Second, trying to work around a prior preclusive judgment by tweaking the mark or expanding the goods rarely succeeds. The Board reads “same claim” broadly. As such, once the door closes on a mark, cosmetic changes will not reopen it.
Precedential No. 7: Michigan law firm owns BIRTH JUSTICE logo, not the associate who conceived it
On September 10, 2026, in Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace, P.C. v. Emily Grace Thomas, Opposition No. 91272167 (TTAB Sept. 10, 2026) [precedential], the Board sustained the opposition of a Michigan personal injury and medical malpractice firm to a former associate’s application to register the BIRTH JUSTICE composite mark for legal consultation, research, litigation assistance, and strategy services related to birth injury.
The facts are worth setting out. Applicant Emily Grace Thomas conceived the mark and registered the birthjustice.com domain in January 2018, both before her employment with the Olsman firm. She joined the firm shortly after and used the mark in her work there, reportedly on two of the largest settlements in the firm’s history. She filed her application on December 16, 2020, in her own name. The firm opposed on ownership grounds.
The Board’s core holding is straightforward. Merely designing or inventing a symbol does not create trademark rights. Only use of the mark in commerce does. Here, the mark was used in commerce by the firm to identify its legal services, and that made the firm the owner. Thomas’s contribution as the mark’s creator did not, standing alone, give her ownership. The Board also refused to consider her implied license defense because it had not been pleaded or tried by consent.
For counsel advising firms and companies, and for counsel advising employees who bring brand assets in the door, three points matter. First, put every attorney, employee, and contractor on written notice about brand ownership before employment begins, and get a written assignment of any pre-existing marks the employee expects to bring in. Second, if an employee wants to retain ownership of a mark she created before joining, structure that ownership as a written license to the employer with clear scope, term, and termination terms. Verbal or “understood” arrangements do not survive an ownership fight at the TTAB. Third, if you are the employee, plead every defense you might need at the earliest opportunity. An implied license theory raised for the first time at trial is not preserved. Importantly, Thomas may retain copyright rights in the logo design as a separate matter, but that is a different question that does not affect the trademark ownership analysis here.
Taylor Swift’s voice marks are back in the conversation as an anti-deepfake tool
We covered Taylor Swift’s April 24, 2026 sound-mark filings in the May 2026 issue of What’s Trending in Trademarks. This month, the strategy is back in the conversation in light of the NO FAKES Act, which cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously on June 22, 2026. Combined with Disney’s December 2025 letter to Google demanding that Gemini stop generating images of Disney characters, the through line is that trademark law is being deployed as an anti-deepfake tool by brand owners of every kind, not just celebrities.
For in-house counsel, the practical point is worth repeating. Trademark law works against synthetic imitation only if the claimed voice, catchphrase, or image functions as a source identifier for particular goods or services. Accordingly, a registered sound or image mark is one piece of a broader anti-deepfake strategy that also includes right-of-publicity claims under state law, contract terms with AI vendors, and, if it passes, a federal statutory claim under the NO FAKES Act. Companies that build recognizable voices and images into their brand identity should be evaluating whether those signals qualify for federal trademark protection and gathering the specimen evidence to prove use before a synthetic imitation puts them in enforcement mode.
A quick note on filings: USPTO Director Squires reports trademark filings up 11 percent
On September 16, 2026, at the third annual Washington D.C. Conference hosted by USC Gould School of Law, USPTO Director John Squires reported that trademark filings for the first nine months of 2026 reached 673,000, an increase of 11 percent over the same period in 2025. For brand owners, that continued filing volume translates into a more crowded register and, likely, a longer road on clearance. Building the record early is more valuable than ever.
