Aaron Judge, ‘All Rise,’ and Common Law Trademark Rights Across Baseball and Judicial Imagery

Mar 6, 2026

By Katelyn Kohler, Esq.

The Federal Circuit’s January 2026 decision in the trademark dispute between Michael P. Chisena and the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA), joined by Aaron Judge (herein “Opposers”), presents a useful case study in how far common-law trademark rights extend when phrases or symbols gain fame through celebrity success. The court correctly upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s finding that ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE functioned as source-identifying marks for Aaron Judge’s licensed apparel by mid-2017.[1] The more difficult question is whether the Board overreached by crediting Opposers’ rights in judicial imagery alone without Aaron Judge’s name, likeness, or specific slogans, since several registrations combine baseball and judicial symbols without signaling Judge.[2]

Background

Michael P. Chisena, appearing pro se, sought registration on the Principal Register of two standard-character marks, ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE, and one design mark depicting a gavel, baseballs, and scales of justice arranged over a baseball field.[3] The applications covered clothing in International Class 25.[4] Chisena filed his intent-to-use applications on July 14, 2017, for the two word marks, and October 12, 2017, for the design mark. As intent-to-use applications, the constructive filing dates represent the earliest priority dates he could claim.[5]

The MLBPA and Judge jointly filed Notices of Opposition, alleging prior common-law rights in what they collectively defined as the “Judge Marks,” encompassing “judicial terminology, including, but not limited to, Judge’s surname, JUDGE, HERE COMES THE JUDGE and ALL RISE, and judicial symbols, including gavels, alone and with other terms and designs.”[6]

To establish common-law rights, Opposers must show by a preponderance of the evidence that (1) their marks are distinctive, and (2) they acquired priority rights.[7] Here, the wordmarks “do not describe the apparel on which they appear … and are thus inherently distinctive.”[8] No showing of secondary meaning was required. The Board also found that Opposers’ symbols as used on athletic apparel, “perform that classic trademark function.”[9] The Board sustained the oppositions under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act, finding that Opposers established priority, distinctiveness, trademark function, and likelihood of confusion.[10]

Chisena appealed only the priority determination, specifically declining to challenge the likelihood-of-confusion finding.[11] This choice left unresolved whether the Board’s acceptance of broad “Judge Marks” could bar third-party use of courtroom imagery in baseball without referencing Judge. The Federal Circuit reviews priority determinations for substantial evidence.[12] Under this deferential standard, the court affirmed.[13]

ALL RISE as a Source Identifier

The Board found that ALL RISE functioned as a trademark identifying Aaron Judge as the source of licensed apparel before Chisena’s July 14, 2017 filing date.[14]

The record strongly supports this. Contemporary media coverage tied ALL RISE to Judge’s meteoric rise during his 2017 rookie season.[15] In May 2017, Sports Illustrated featured Judge on its cover under the headline “All Rise! The Yankees Youth Movement is in Session.” By June 2017, MLBPA-approved licensees sold ALL RISE apparel featuring Judge’s image and gavel design. Fans at the MLB Home Run Derby held “ALL RISE” signs in support of Judge, only four days later did Chisena file his applications.

Google Search-trend data corroborates this timeline. Compound searches combining “Aaron Judge” and “All Rise” were effectively nonexistent before 2017, then spiked during Judge’s breakout season. The pattern repeated in 2022 during Judge’s record-setting home run chase.[16] The emergence of “All Rise Foundation” and “Aaron Judge All Rise Foundation” as breakout search terms further demonstrates this slogan tied directly to Judge.[17]

Although ALL RISE predates Aaron Judge as a phrase, trademark law focuses on consumer perception not novelty. The Board found that fans purchased and wore licensed apparel to demonstrate support for Aaron Judge’s baseball career.[18] “The evidence establishes that fans perceive these judicially-themed slogans as a direct and unmistakable reference to Opposer Aaron Judge, as a play on his judicial-sounding surname.”[19]

HERE COMES THE JUDGE is Weaker, but Still Established

The evidentiary record for HERE COMES THE JUDGE is thinner. Google search data reflects tens of thousands of unrelated uses, not the sustained association present with Judge and ALL RISE.[20]

Chisena asserted that he conceived the marks between 2012 and 2015, before Aaron Judge’s professional career, that he had “no knowledge of Aaron Judge” when filing, and that the timing of his applications was purely coincidental.[21] He further explained that the marks were inspired by the analogy that “baseball is governed by rules and umpires similar to a courtroom proceeding is governed by laws and judges.”[22]

Nevertheless, priority may be established through licensed third-party use.[23] By June and July 2017, MLBPA-approved licensees sold HERE COMES THE JUDGE apparel featuring gavel and baseball diamond imagery.[24] Most notably, MLBPA-approved design launched on July 13, 2017, exactly one day before Chisena filed his intent-to-use applications. The Board treated the dated product list as substantial evidence of priority over Chisena, and that “[t]he primary significance of … HERE COMES THE JUDGE was the judicial connotation … playing on both the judicial and surname meanings.”[25]

The Overreach of Judicial Iconography

The Board concluded that “the consuming public recognizes the subject slogans and symbols carrying judicial connotations as pointing to only one baseball player.”[26] This formulation, however, conflates use (i.e. gavels paired with Judge’s name, ALL RISE, or HERE COMES THE JUDGE) with independent rights in the judicial elements themselves.

MLBPA’s licensees consistently paired these elements, whereas Chisena’s mark shows only judicial and baseball imagery. Yet, the Board accepted Opposers’ expansive definition of the marks to include judicial symbols “alone and with other terms and designs,” effectively asserting rights over courtroom imagery whenever it appears in a baseball context. Since Chisena challenged only priority on appeal, the Federal Circuit did not address whether such a definition could foreclose third-party use of gavels or scales in baseball-themed designs.

The Board emphasized features of Chisena’s design tied to Judge-specific context: “the scales of justice [are] tilting toward right field, Aaron Judge’s frequent defensive position,” with “a judicial gavel … striking the baseball in right field.”[27] Chisena filed the design mark slightly later on October 12, 2017, by which time Judge was already famous as the Yankees’ right fielder, “The Judge’s Chambers” had opened in the right field stands, and licensed apparel with gavels and baseballs was widely selling.[28] These specific details supports an inference of association in this scenario.

Still, the Board’s reliance on Judge-specific context suggests that judicial symbols alone do not function as source identifiers. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s finding that the MLBPA holds common-law rights in “certain judicial symbols and legal phrases such as a gavel, an image of a courthouse, or the scales of justice, all of which were associated with Judge.”[29] It remains uncertain whether a standalone image combining baseball and judicial elements—absent Judge’s name, likeness, slogans, colors or other distinctive cues—would truly identify Aaron Judge to the public.

Trademark law does not recognize rights in general themes.[30] Several live registrations show that baseball-and-justice imagery lacks inherent distinctiveness identifying Aaron Judge specifically:

(1) Registration No. 6,703,358 depicts a baseball bat forming a judge’s gavel. Registered for sports memorabilia and T-shirts in Class 25, it shows preexisting use of combined baseball and judicial imagery on apparel;

(2) Registration No. 7,998,765 incorporates an angelic figure, scales of justice, and a baseball cap. Registered for clothing in Class 25, it reflects use of baseball-judicial imagery on apparel without signaling association with Judge;

(3) Registration No. 8,028,671 features a stylized “ALL RISE” mark using a gavel as the letter “I” and a heart with baseball stitching. Registered for unrelated medical and scientific software services in Class 42; and

(4) Serial No. 98385882 (filed February 1, 2024) depicts a human figure holding scales of justice within a home-plate shape. Registered for business consulting, ADR, and legal services in Classes 35 and 45, it combines baseball and judicial symbolism.[31]

These coexisting applications demonstrate third-party use of judicial iconography, combined with baseball elements, across disparate goods and services without signaling Aaron Judge or MLBPA as the source.

Conclusion

Common-law trademark rights can arise when a phrase or symbol becomes closely linked to a celebrity. The Federal Circuit correctly found substantial evidence supporting priority in ALL RISE and HERE COMES THE JUDGE as slogans tied to Aaron Judge through licensed use and fan perception. Yet, extending rights to judicial imagery untethered from his name or slogans could effectively cover all clothing featuring gavels, scales, or baseball motifs. Even though the Board and Federal Circuit considered Chisena’s marks in Judge-specific context, the breadth of the clothing category shows how such protection risks encompassing generic symbolism.

Katelyn Kohler, Esq. is a graduate of Suffolk University Law School in Boston, specializing in Sports & Entertainment, Intellectual Property, and Labor & Employment Law. She holds dual degrees from Ithaca College in Business Administration: Sports Management and Legal Studies.

  1. Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, No. 2023-2073, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 395, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026); Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Chisena, 2023 TTAB LEXIS 117, at *1 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2023) [hereinafter TTAB Decision]. ↑

  2. See infra note 29. ↑

  3. ALL RISE, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87528414 (filed July 14, 2017) (intent-to-use under § 1(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b)); HERE COMES THE JUDGE, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87528440 (filed July 14, 2017) (intent-to-use under § 1(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b)); Design Mark, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 87643089 (filed Oct. 12, 2017) (intent-to-use under § 1(b) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b)); TTAB Decision at *1 n.3 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2023) (“The application describes the mark as follows: ‘Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the depiction of a gavel and the scales of justice with each end supporting a baseball, both the gavel and the scales of justice being superimposed over the outline of a baseball field.’”). ↑

  4. TTAB Decision at *1 (“clothing, namely, t-shirts, shirts, shorts, pants, sweatshirts, sweatpants, jackets, jerseys, athletic uniforms, and caps”). ↑

  5. Zirco Corp. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1542, 1544 (T.T.A.B. 1991) (“[T]here can be no doubt but that the right to rely upon the constructive use date comes into existence with the filing of the intent-to-use application.”) ↑

  6. Opposition Nos. 91240180, 91242556, 91243244; TTAB Decision at *35-36 ↑

  7. ARSA Distributing, Inc. v. Salud Natural Mexicana S.A. de C.V., 2022 U.S.P.Q.2d 887, at *14-15 (T.T.A.B. 2022) ↑

  8. TTAB Decision at *38; see Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, No. 2023-2073, 2026 LX 41156, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026) (affirming Board’s finding that marks were distinctive). ↑

  9. TTAB Decision at *48. ↑

  10. Id. at *24–25, *47–48, *61, *73–74 (finding Opposers established distinctiveness and trademark function of the asserted marks; concluding that Opposers proved priority of use; and sustaining the oppositions under § 2(d) of the Lanham Act based on likelihood of confusion). ↑

  11. Chisena, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 395, at *4 (“Chisena challenges only the Board’s priority ruling”)(emphasis added). But See ppellees’ Response in Opp’n to Appellant’s Mot. to Strike, Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, No. 23-2073, at 2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 22, 2025), ECF No. 81 (noting that although Chisena styled his appeal as limited to “priority,” he previously characterized that issue as encompassing “all the topics and matters covered by the TTAB from pp. 2–50 of its Opinion”). ↑

  12. Chisena, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 395, at *4 (citing Araujo v. Framboise Holdings Inc., 99 F.4th 1377, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2024). ↑

  13. Chisena, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 395, at *1, 4 ↑

  14. TTAB Decision at *17; see also Moreno v. Pro Boxing Supplies, Inc., 124 USPQ2d 1028, 1035 (TTAB 2017) (stating use of a mark by a licensee insures benefit of trademark owner). ↑

  15. See Chisena, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 395, at *5-6; See e.g., TTAB Decision at *8-9 (citing Sports Illustrated cover, Opposers’ Second Notice of Reliance, ex. 93); id. at *22-24 (Kaplan decl. paras. 22-24; Bored In Class decl. paras. 11-12; Fan Print decl. paras. 11-12); id. at *6-7, *11 (Judge decl. para. 11; Chisena dep. 77:2-17). ↑

  16. Google Trends data show compound queries such as “Aaron Judge all rise” were effectively zero before 2017, spiking to a normalized peak (100) in mid-2017, coinciding with Judge’s breakout season. A similar pattern recurred in September 2022 during Judge’s record-setting home run chase. Standalone searches for “all rise” remained low (generally 1–7), indicating limited use outside Judge contexts. ↑

  17. Aaron Judge ALL RISE Foundation, https://aaronjudgeallrisefoundation.org/ (last visited Feb. 6, 2026) ↑

  18. TTAB Decision at *54 ↑

  19. TTAB Decision at *46 (emphasis added). ↑

  20. Google News search (2015–2026) shows over 2,400 hits linking “Aaron Judge” with “ALL RISE.” By contrast, Google Trends and search data for HERE COMES THE JUDGE show no spikes in 2017 or 2022, with only ~85 results connecting the phrase to Judge versus tens of thousands of unrelated uses. ↑

  21. TTAB Decision at *10-12. ↑

  22. Id. at *13 (quoting Chisena dep. 73:2-5). ↑

  23. See supra note 14. ↑

  24. TTAB Decision at *28-31 (noting MLBPA-approved licensees with slogan); id. at *31-32 (noting Coed T-shirt launched July 13, 2017, one day before Chisena filed intent-to-use application). ↑

  25. Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass’n, No. 2023-2073, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 395, at *32-34 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2026). ↑

  26. TTAB Decision at *52 (emphasis added). ↑

  27. Id. at *66. ↑

  28. Id. at *10-11 (Judge’s Chambers opened May 2017); id. at *22-28 (licensee sales data). ↑

  29. Chisena, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 395, at *2 (defining Opposers’ marks) ↑

  30. In re Vox Populi Registry Ltd., 25 F.4th 1348, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (stating a trademark must “function as a source identifier”). ↑

  31. U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,703,358 (filed Mar. 22, 2016) (baseball bat forming judge’s gavel, Class 25); U.S. Trademark Registration No. 7,998,765 (filed Apr. 12, 2018) (angelic figure, scales of justice, baseball cap, Class 25); U.S. Trademark Registration No. 8,028,671 (filed Sept. 14, 2018) (stylized “ALL RISE” with gavel as “I” and heart with baseball stitching, Class 42); U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 98385882 (filed Feb. 1, 2024) (human figure holding scales of justice in home-plate shape, Classes 35 & 45). ↑

Articles in Current Issue