Federal Circuit Affirms LeBron’s Priority in Marks I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE Based on Valid Assignment of Common Law Rights

Game Plan, Inc. (“Game Plan”), a nonprofit organization that supports student‑athletes in underserved communities, appealed a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) to the Federal Circuit (see Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted IP, LLC, 2025 USPQ2D 1451 (Fed. Cir. 2025)). In the underlying TTAB proceeding, Game Plan had opposed six intent-to-use applications filed by Uninterrupted IP, LLC (“Uninterrupted”) for variations of the marks I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE and MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. Uninterrupted, a media company co-founded by LeBron James, promotes content focused on athletes’ identities and personal stories outside of sports.

The TTAB dismissed the opposition as to all six of Uninterrupted’s applications and also granted Uninterrupted’s counterclaim to cancel Game Plan’s own registration for the mark I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. GP GAMEPLAN (the registration and applications are shown below).

The TTAB’s rulings turned on the priority dispute stemming from a 2019 asset purchase agreement through which Uninterrupted acquired rights in the MORE THAN AN ATHLETE mark from a third party. At the Federal Circuit, Game Plan contended that the TTAB erred in determining that Uninterrupted had priority based on the assignment. In advancing this position, Game Plan asserted that the assignment from the third party to Uninterrupted was invalid under Section 10 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1)), claiming it was an impermissible “assignment in gross” and that it effectively amended Uninterrupted’s pending intent-to-use applications after they had been opposed. Game Plan also contended that the TTAB failed to review evidence supporting Game Plan’s assertion that the assignment was invalid.

The Federal Circuit was unpersuaded. First, it held that the assignment was not “in gross” because it expressly transferred the trademarks together with the associated goodwill. In the TTAB decision, the Board pointed to the origins of the MORE THAN AN ATHLETE mark, which was developed by founder DeAndra Alex as part of a mission-driven initiative promoting athletes’ identities beyond sports and was used in commerce through relatively modest sales of wristbands and apparel over a period of several years. Although those sales were limited in scale and largely tied to grassroots events and online channels, the TTAB concluded they were sufficient to establish a bona fide business and an identifiable source associated with the mark. The TTAB further noted that Uninterrupted and the prior owner Ms. Alex shared a common purpose and audience, reinforcing continuity in the mark’s commercial impression. Finally, Uninterrupted’s decision to retain the prior owner as a consultant supported the conclusion that the goodwill associated with the mark transferred intact rather than being severed from the trademark. In view of the evidence of record, the Federal Circuit agreed with the TTAB’s finding that the assignment was not “in gross.”

Second, the Court explained that Section 1060(a)(1)’s restrictions did not apply because Uninterrupted acquired pre-existing common law trademark rights that were already in use and were not merely intent-to-use applications. As a result, the assignment did not violate Section 1060(a)(1).

Further, the Court rejected Game Plan’s “substantive amendment” argument, noting that it rested on a faulty premise: the TTAB did not base priority on Uninterrupted’s applications at all, but rather on Uninterrupted’s ownership of common law trademark rights that it had obtained through the assignment.

Finally, the Federal Circuit addressed Game Plan’s claim that the TTAB failed to objectively evaluate evidence challenging the assignment’s validity. Game Plan failed to introduce evidence during the trial phase, which is required under TTAB procedure, and instead relied on documents attached to a summary judgment motion. Because that evidence was never properly made part of the trial record, the Federal Circuit held, the TTAB acted within its discretion in declining to consider it.

Takeaway

The decision underscores several well-established principles in trademark law. First, priority of use may be established through the valid assignment of common law trademark rights. Second, a trademark assignment is not improper where the associated goodwill transfers with the mark, even if the assignment involves intent-to-use applications. Finally, the case serves as a cautionary reminder that procedural errors, particularly the failure to properly introduce evidence into the trial record, can be dispositive on appeal.

Brand owners and practitioners should therefore carefully evaluate trademark assignments and their litigation strategy early to avoid procedural pitfalls and preserve their ability to enforce trademark rights against third parties.