直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Cancellation of Registration Based on Priority of Common Law Rights

January 13, 2026

Authored and Edited by Ngozi D. Akingbesote, Ph.D.; Wyatt L. Bazrod; Erik R. Puknys

In Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted IP, LLC, No. 2024-1407 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 10, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB), cancellation of Game Plan’s registration for the stylized mark “I AM MORE THAN AN ATHLETE. GP GAME PLAN.” After Game Plan registered its mark in 2018, Uninterrupted IP, LLC (“UNIP”) filed applications in 2018 for the mark “MORE THAN AN ATHLETE,” and subsequently acquired common law rights to the mark in 2019. The assignment of common law rights occurred during the underlying TTAB litigation between the parties. The TTAB held that UNIP’s assigned common law rights had priority and cancelled Game Plan’s registration.

On appeal, Game Plan argued the assignment violated trademark antitrafficking rules and procedural regulations. The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that the assignment was not an “assignment in gross” because it expressly transferred both the mark and the associated goodwill, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1). The court found substantial evidence that UNIP’s use of the mark was substantially similar to the prior owner’s use, and that continuity of goodwill was maintained.

The Federal Circuit held that the timing of the assignment—during litigation—did not violate trademark law, as motives for assignment during litigation are not dispositive and such transfers are permissible when accompanied by goodwill. Additionally, the court clarified that Section 1060(a)(1) does not restrict the assignment of preexisting common law rights. Accordingly, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s priority determination based on UNIP’s assigned common law rights.

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Trademark and Brand Management

Trademark Oppositions and Cancellations

Related Industries

Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure

Sports, Fitness, and Outdoor Recreation

Related Offices

Palo Alto, CA

Washington, DC

Contacts

Ngozi D. Akingbesote, Ph.D.
Technical Specialist
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2421
Email
Wyatt L. Bazrod
Associate
Atlanta, GA
+1 404 653 6518
Email
Erik R. Puknys
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6644
Email

Copyright © 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

Seminar

3rd AI, IP, & Legal Forum

June 6, 2026

Shangai

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP