Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Newsletter – Volume 26, Issue 12
Share on Social
WNBA Comebacks, Celebrity Claims, and a Trademark Plot Twist?
Women’s sports are having a moment, and not a small one. From college arenas to Olympic podiums to sold-out pro venues, the spotlight is brighter than ever. Much of that surge is powered by superstars like Caitlin Clark, Simone Biles, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Ilona Maher, Chloe Kim and Coco Gauff. The competition is fierce, the athleticism undeniable, and the fanbase? Growing fast.
And right alongside that rise: the business of women’s sports is heating up, including some surprisingly dramatic trademark battles.
A league on the rise… and looking back
The WNBA tipped off in 1997 with eight teams, including the Houston Comets and Cleveland Rockers. The Detroit Shock followed in 1998. Today, the league has expanded, evolved, and after years of relatively steady attendance, has seen a major surge in popularity starting in 2024.
Now, the WNBA is looking to the future by revisiting its past. Expansion teams are planned for Cleveland in 2028 and Detroit in 2029, and a Houston return is also in the works via a planned team relocation. Naturally, the league would love to revive those original, nostalgia-rich team names.
There’s just one problem: someone else may already own them.
The WNBA allowed its trademark registrations for HOUSTON COMETS, DETROIT SHOCK, and CLEVELAND ROCKERS to lapse. In 2025, it filed new applications to reclaim those names. But in the time between “letting go” and “wanting back,” others stepped in.
For example, TSTM Holdings, LLC has a pending application for HOUSTON COMETS covering entertainment services and clothing. While little is publicly known about the company, it’s widely believed to be tied to the rapper Travis Scott. The WNBA has opposed that application, arguing it still has prior rights. However, having ceased operations in 2008, the WNBA may face an uphill battle in demonstrating that it has rights in HOUSTON COMETS that precede those of TSTM Holdings.
Trademark owners sometimes argue that even if a brand hasn’t been used in years, consumers still remember it and associate it with the trademark owner. This lingering association is known as “residual goodwill.” It’s an appealing idea, especially for well-known, legacy brands. But under U.S. trademark law, it’s not enough.
Trademark rights are built on use. And when use stops, the clock starts ticking. After three consecutive years of non-use, the law presumes the trademark rights have been abandoned. At that point, the door opens for others to adopt the mark and build their own rights. Residual goodwill might sound powerful, but in practice, it won’t win cases.
Women’s Basketball League, Inc. (not to be confused with the Women’s National Basketball Association), owns registrations for DETROIT SHOCK and CLEVELAND ROCKERS. The WNBA’s application for DETROIT SHOCK has already been refused based on those existing rights, and its application for CLEVELAND ROCKERS is currently facing opposition. In other words: the league that created these brands will have to fight to get them back.
The real takeaway: use it and maintain it, or risk losing it
If there’s a moral to this story, it’s not subtle.
Trademark rights aren’t permanent trophies, they’re more like gym memberships. If you stop showing up, you lose the benefits. The best way to avoid loss of trademark rights is to continue to use the trademark in a bona fide manner. Token use merely to reserve rights in a trademark does not constitute “use” as the trademark law defines it and will not effectively maintain rights in a trademark.
Unless the trademark owner is sure that it will not resume use of a mark in the future, it would be advisable to make every effort to maintain rights in the mark, and to maintain the associated registrations. This is particularly important with marks that have garnered significant reputation and goodwill, and marks that have achieved federal registration.
The WNBA’s resurgence is a great story. Its trademark situation? A cautionary tale.
Michelle Visser is a partner of Fishman Stewart, with over 25 years of experience practicing trademark law with other members of the firm’s Trademark Group. Check out her full bio here.
Related Content from Fishman Stewart
Women’s sports are having a moment, and not a small one. And right alongside that rise: the business of women’s sports is heating up, including some surprisingly dramatic trademark battles.
The idea that someone might “own” a piece of DNA raises a slightly uncomfortable question: can you really patent something that exists inside all of us?
Forbes reported that more than 1.5 million bots on an AI agent-driven social network appear to have created a new religion for themselves, the Church of Molt, with congregants adopting the name of “Crustafarians.”
Every March, college basketball players get an opportunity to become household sensations overnight. In today’s NIL (Name Image Likeness) era, that moment can be a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity.
Behind the shamrocks and celebrations of St. Patrick's Day lies a surprisingly rich intersection with intellectual property.
Last week, PEI Licensing, LLC., the owner of the ORIGINAL PENGUIN brand (also known simply as PENGUIN) sued Pudgy Penguins Inc. in federal court in Florida over their respective penguin trademarks.
Matthew McConaughey recently obtained several trademark registrations with the U.S. Trademark Office in an effort to digitally capture and protect his entire persona.
Patents enable others to learn from, build upon, and improve the disclosed invention effectively. However, some have questioned whether they still work in today’s artificial intelligence (AI) landscape.
As athletes chase Olympic glory, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) is fighting a different battle, one over public perception and trademark law.
Golf is entering a data driven era, and the 2026 PGA Show showed that the most important IP in the game is shifting.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
