This month: a TTAB use-in-commerce decision worth bookmarking, Taylor Swift’s push to use trademark law against AI misuse, a false endorsement suit against Samsung, and a roadside trade dress fight in Georgia.
May’s trademark news has a clear theme: brand owners trying to get ahead of threats before the marketplace, the internet, or AI creates them. Your brand is no longer just a name and logo. It may be a voice, a visual look, a mascot, or the total commercial impression created by all of them.
TTAB: a rebrand announcement is not use
The TTAB’s precedential decision in In re Everwise Credit Union is the most important story this month for trademark practitioners.
The Board cancelled EVERWISE CREDIT UNION because the registrant failed to show use in commerce by the statement-of-use deadline. The Board found that references to the mark were buried in text or reflected future rebranding, not bona fide trademark use. A single specimen was not enough where the broader record showed an attempt to reserve rights through minimal, token use. Read the decision.
The Board’s opinion is blunt. A launch plan is not a launch.
The practice takeaway is clear: do not file a statement of use until the mark is actually functioning as a mark. That means consumers can encounter it in the marketplace and recognize it as a source identifier, not just a name that appears in internal documents or a press release announcing a future rebrand. When in doubt, wait.
Taylor Swift files sound and image marks aimed at AI misuse
Trademark law is being used as one part of a broader anti-AI strategy, and the Taylor Swift filings from April 24 show how. TAS Rights Management filed three USPTO applications: two sound mark applications for voice greetings, and a third covering a visual depiction of Swift in a signature performance look.
The strategy is worth understanding. Copyright may not help where an AI output mimics a voice without copying a specific recording. Publicity rights remain state-law driven and inconsistent across jurisdictions. Trademark law offers a federal path, but only if the claimed voice or image actually functions as a source identifier. That is not guaranteed, and the USPTO will scrutinize it.
You cannot trademark identity in the abstract. For in-house counsel at companies building AI-facing brand protection strategies, the Swift filings are a useful reference point. Start with what your audience already recognizes as a source identifier. Build the record to show that recognition, and then file.
Dua Lipa v. Samsung: when packaging becomes a false endorsement case
Dua Lipa sued Samsung on May 8 in the Central District of California. She alleges Samsung used her photograph on TV packaging sold across the United States without permission and seeks at least $15 million. The complaint alleges copyright infringement, publicity-rights violations, and a trademark-related false endorsement theory under Lanham Act § 43(a).
The false endorsement theory is the one to watch. It is distinct from a registration-based trademark claim. Section 43(a) does not require a registered mark. It requires only that the use of a person’s identity creates a false impression of sponsorship, affiliation, or approval. A celebrity photograph on retail packaging can do exactly that, regardless of whether any license was ever contemplated.
Image clearance is not just a copyright issue. Vendor assurances about rights may not be enough if the end use looks like an endorsement. It’s worth reviewing your packaging and promotional materials with both copyright and false endorsement exposure in mind.
Buc-ee’s sues over a bear, a beaver, and roadside brand confusion
Buc-ee’s filed suit against Teddy’s Market in Georgia, alleging Teddy’s copied its overall brand identity: a smiling animal mascot, a consistent visual style, and a roadside presence designed to attract highway travelers. Buc-ee’s also seeks to block Teddy’s pending trademark application.
This is not just a logo case. Buc-ee’s is framing the dispute around total commercial impression: mascot design, store environment, roadside visibility, geographic expansion path, and the cumulative effect on customer recognition. That is a trade dress theory, and it is harder to defend against than a simple mark-versus-mark comparison.
For brands with physical locations, the lesson is straightforward. Trade dress lives in the details. Document the choices that make your locations recognizable. That documentation is your evidence if a competitor starts making similar choices.
Closing thought
May’s trademark stories keep coming back to evidence. Evidence of permission. Evidence of source identification. Evidence of real use. Evidence that your brand controls its own ecosystem. That is especially true in entertainment and AI-facing brands. The public sees the brand first. The legal record has to be ready when they do.
