Imagine if someone, right now, went to the USPTO and filed a trademark registration that is too similar to yours? One of the options is to present an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and challenge the trademark registration. There will be a special proceeding where the TTAB will determine whether your claims are valid and if you win, the rival’s trademark application will be canceled.

This appears to be the case of NIKE which filed a trademark opposition against JUST TRY IT, LLC this Wednesday. The company based in Phoenix, AZ, filed an application to the USPTO for the registration of the “Just Try It” trademark on Oct. 20th, 2020. Just Try It aims to provide to its online community reviews of different products through blogs, articles, or social media. Its trademark application as well identifies the entertainment service as its area of application mentioning the intentions of the company regarding the trademark use. Nike, on the other hand, opposes this trademark application as they have made substantial sales of goods and services under its JUST DO IT Mark. Thanks to them using this slogan in advertising and promotional campaigns over the course of three decades, it has now become a core part of Nike’s identity. Besides the intense use of the trademark, Nike also has multiple trademark registrations of this slogan in different areas, from clothing, glasses, and sportswear to different accessories such as necklaces or bracelets. Mentioning the likelihood of confusion and trademark dilution, Nike asks for the trademark application to be refused as its registration would injure and damage them.

It will be interesting to see how this further develops since the application claims only the online reviews as the area where this trademark will be used. However, its similarity with Nike’s “Just Do It” may lead to a victory for Nike which has already won a similar battle in 2020 against the registration of the “Just Believe It” trademark. That trademark was also intended to be used in business consulting services, unrelated to the use from Nike. However, the TTAB highlighted the likelihood of confusion and the fame of the trademark, which remain dominant factors in the judgment, independent of the consideration of the relatedness of the goods.

Nike is being represented by Helen Hill Minsker, Michael J. Harris, Michael Kientzle, Kathleen P. Duffy, and Kim Hedgren of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP.