Finnegan Secures Another TTAB Victory for Under Armour

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 31, 2025

Finnegan represents Under Armour in numerous federal district court and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) cases and routinely counsels Under Armour on various non-contentious trademark, licensing, copyright, right-of-publicity, false-advertising, and related matters. Finnegan is currently handling more than two dozen enforcement matters for Under Armour.

In Under Armour, Inc. v. Valiant Praize Productions LLC, Cancellation No. 92082443, TTAB, Finnegan represented Under Armour in a cancellation proceeding against applicant Valiant Praize Productions LLC to cancel a registration for the mark KINGS ARMOUR for various apparel products, asserting a likelihood of confusion and dilution of its UNDER ARMOUR mark, ARMOUR mark, and family of ARMOUR-formative marks. After a full trial on the merits, the Board held that the challenged KINGS ARMOR mark conflicts with Under Armour’s UNDER ARMOUR mark.

This decision follows closely on the heels of another ruling from the Board just two months ago finding that the mark OUTERARMOUR also conflicted with Under Armour’s UNDER ARMOUR mark. As in that prior ruling, the Board based its decision on just a conflict with the composite UNDER ARMOUR mark, without reaching Under Armour’s asserted ARMOUR mark and/or family of ARMOUR-formative marks. To that end, the Board once again held that, based on Under Armour’s significant evidence of extensive sales, use, and promotion, the UNDER ARMOUR mark is “very strong and entitled to a broad scope of protection,” which “weigh[ed] heavily in favor of a conclusion of a likelihood of confusion.” The Board also found that, ”because [the parties’] respective goods are identical [i.e., various apparel], with no restrictions or limitations as to channels of trade or classes of customers,” the channels of trade and classes of purchasers for the parties’ goods were “presume[d]” to be “identical,” further “weigh[ing] heavily in favor of a conclusion of a likelihood of confusion.” Regarding the similarity between Under Armour’s UNDER ARMOUR and the Registrant’s KINGS ARMOR mark, the Board found that they “share[d] the second word ARMOR, or ARMOUR in the British spelling,” which the Board deemed to be “more dominant than the first words of the respective marks, as ARMO(U)R is significant in creating the commercial impression of each mark.” Accordingly, the Board found that “UNDER ARMOUR and KINGS ARMOR are more similar than dissimilar in terms of appearance, sound, and commercial impression,” weighing further in favor of a likelihood of confusion.

With two significant decisions from the Board for Under Armour in less than two months, this decision further underscores the rights this category leading brand is entitled to in the courts and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.