Michael Chisena applied to register the trademarks “All Rise,” “Here Comes The Judge” and a design mark depicting the scales of justice over a baseball field for clothing in International Class (IC) 25. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refused registration based on likelihood of confusion, false suggestion of a connection and use of a particular living individual’s name without his consent. The TTAB cited similar marks used on similar clothing, creating direct competition with the trademarks for New York Yankee Aaron Judge and his mother’s All Rise Foundation (the “Judge Trademarks”). Although Chisena claimed he did not know about the Judge Trademarks, the TTAB was suspicious of the timing of the filing, which was just days after Judge won the nationally televised 2017 Home Run Derby. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 117 (TTAB 2023). On January 8, 2026 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the TTAB decision.

Trademarks are organized into 45 international classes with additional optional classifications for certification and collective membership marks. (Certification marks indicate that goods or services meet standards set by the certification mark’s owner, such as those established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, while collective marks identify affiliated members that have met certain shared standards, such as PBS member stations.) Because distinctiveness depends on the goods and services with which a mark is used, trademark protection applies only to the specific classes in which a mark is registered.

There can be multiple registrations for the same mark if they are in different registration classes. For example, “All Rise” is likely too generic for places of worship but is registered for medical and scientific research in IC 42, print publications in IC 16, and clothing in IC 25. Similarly, “Judge” is generic for someone who presides over a courtroom but is a registered trademark for “Hand tools for culinary and for horticultural use” in IC 8, “Fungicides for use in agriculture” in IC 5 and “Personnel searching” in IC 35.

Identical trademarks can coexist because refusal is based on consumer confusion, which does not arise if the classes are sufficiently distinct. Unlike the Chisena case where the same goods are involved, a “Judge” mark for forks and knives is unlikely to be associated with a job search company, making consumer confusion unlikely. For further reading from our website on the topics discussed here, see the following insights and IP Bits & Pieces®: Would You Like Your Crab With or Without a Registered Trademark?, Trademarks and Co-Ownership, Transferred Trademarks: Assignment in Gross Explained and our Trademark FAQs.