California Intellectual Property Blog

Background image

Tag: trademark cancellation

Donald Trump Has Had a Busy Week at the U.S. Trademark Office

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

Donald Trump trademark issues

It’s no surprise for the President of the United States to find himself in the news. It’s part of the job. However, Donald Trump has had a particularly newsworthy week in an area that often goes unnoticed: American trademark law. The president’s lawyers have been busy submitting requests for new intellectual property (IP) rights and fending off potential trademark infringement.

While the president certainly isn’t dealing with these problems himself, the increasing number of IP issues might soon catch his attention.

Donald Trump Seeking New Trademarks, Defending Old Ones

It made international news when Florida lawmakers voted to rename Palm Beach airport after President Donald Trump. However, eyebrows quickly shot up when the president’s intellectual property company filed to trademark his name for use on airports. This essentially opened the door for Trump to profit from what’s typically considered an honorary naming.

The president also pressured New York to rename an airport after him, offering to unfreeze billions in infrastructure funding if they did so. While it’s unclear how any of this will play out, the president is also facing intellectual property issues that seem more straightforward. Case in point, the “Trump Burger” saga seems to be reaching an inflection point.

People took note when a Texas restaurant chain branded itself as “Trump Burger.” The restaurant was overtly pro-Trump, but it wasn’t linked to the president. Ownership disputes eventually led to a company fracture. Two separate parties claim ownership over the franchise, and one sought to register “MAGA Burger” with the U.S. Trademark Office.

Trump’s people quickly filed a trademark opposition.

Additional Attempts to Profit From the MAGA Movement

Watching the “Trump Burger” fiasco unfold has been interesting. It involved ownership disputes, allegations of sham marriages and visa overstays, lawsuits, and even deportation proceedings. Now that Trump’s lawyers have officially become involved to stop the “MAGA Burger” trademark from going through, the end of this story is likely within sight.

However, it appears the president now has intellectual property disputes on other fronts. Two trademark cancellation filings were filed with the Trademark Office on February 26, 2026, by businesses related to the Trump Organization. These filings targeted existing registrations for “MAGA Rats” and “MAGA Grace.”

The MAGA Rats trademark appears to belong to a Florida company that produces pro-Trump clothing. On the other hand, MAGA Grace is linked to a Chinese company that sells bags and accessories. Considering the president’s hardline stance on intellectual property rights, it’s interesting that these companies were able to secure trademark registration in the first place.

However, this appears to be an oversight that the Trump Organization is ready to correct.

David and David and David Versus Goliath

Some organizations might buckle under the weight of so many simultaneous legal issues. However, the Trump Organization has the resources of a billionaire and the President of the United States at its disposal. There’s little doubt that it will be able to handle new registrations, old fights, and new battles simultaneously.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has consistently upheld the trademark rights of Donald Trump. With the president’s handpicked director at the helm of the agency, it would be unsurprising if his winning streak were to continue. However, it’s hard to deny that mentions of “MAGA” would likely always bring the president to mind. Essentially, the president has a point.

The USPTO will need to decide whether the companies facing opposition and cancellation from the Trump Organization could create consumer confusion by merely existing. If recent history has taught us anything, though, there’s a high likelihood that the POTUS will walk away from these fights with more than he started with.

Company Aims to Take the Twitter Trademark Away From Elon Musk

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

twitter

It’s been years since Elon Musk took over Twitter and rebranded it as “X.” Since then, he’s aggressively tried to leave Twitter’s iconography behind. In one post, he even said he would “bid adieu to the Twitter brand and… all the birds.” However, this aggressive rebrand may have left the Twitter trademark vulnerable to appropriation.

On December 2, 2025, an American startup company known as Operation Bluebird filed a trademark cancellation petition against the social media giant. The brand claims that Musk’s social media platform has essentially abandoned the Twitter trademark. If the cancellation is successful, a new Twitter may be on the horizon.

Could Musk Lose the Twitter Trademark?

Under U.S. trademark law, companies have to use their trademarks actively in commerce to retain rights. One cannot simply sit on their rights and not exercise them. If a brand identifier falls out of use, it becomes an abandoned trademark. At such a point, other companies could hypothetically file for registration and take control of the trademark.

This is the goal of Operation Bluebird. The brand plans to launch a new Twitter platform, Twitter.new. On the website, the term “The public square is broken” immediately pops up. This is a reference to Twitter once being known as the public square. Taking on X Corp. and Elon Musk may be a tall order, but it’s very possible that Operation Bluebird could be successful.

In the cancellation filing, the company claims that X has abandoned the Twitter trademark. The submission also states that X committed fraud by requesting trademark extensions with no bona fide intent to use certain Twitter-adjacent marks. However, this is not the first time X has faced such a challenge. In the past, it has been successful at maintaining its unused trademark.

What Are the Arguments Against X Corp. Owning Twitter?

In May 2022, a trademark application was submitted to claim exclusive rights to the term “But his tweets.” The filing was a play on “But her emails,” a term used in support of Hillary Clinton, submitted by a Donald Trump fan. Even though Musk was still friendly with Trump at the time, X Corp. submitted a trademark opposition to prevent registration.

Even though Twitter had rebranded to X and Musk wanted to “bid adieu” to the entire brand, the company still fought to safeguard the Twitter trademark. In the end, a ruling was issued against the applicant. “But his tweets” did not receive registration. However, this seems to have been a default judgment based on the applicant’s failure to respond to the opposition.

That means no real decision was reached in the case regarding the continued rights belonging to X. In fact, it appears as if the individual applicant simply wasn’t ready to take on a social media powerhouse with the world’s richest person at the helm. Twitter.new doesn’t seem to have the same reservations.

What Happens Next?

When X submitted a trademark opposition against the “But his tweets” trademark application, it essentially went on the offensive. Since the company was taking on a single individual – who undoubtedly did not have the resources of Musk – it easily emerged victorious. In reality, there wasn’t even a real fight to witness.

With Twitter.new aiming to take over the Twitter trademark, X now needs to go on the defensive. Operation Bluebird has fired the first shot in what could be an extended war. In reality, the startup company has a solid argument. While proving fraud may be a difficult endeavor, it does seem as though X Corp. may have abandoned commercial use of the Twitter brand.

While the abandonment claim is plausible — and targets several Twitter trademarks – this is unlikely to be an easy win for Project Bluebird. X Corp. could claim that it maintains residual goodwill since consumers still commonly refer to the website as “Twitter.” The brand can also claim that it intends to resume use at some point.

Regardless of the eventual outcome, it will be interesting to see how far Musk will go to protect a brand he has no interest in using.

Another Brand Owns a Pokémon Trademark. Nintendo Strikes Back

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

Another Brand Owns a Pokémon Trademark. Nintendo Strikes Back

It seems unlikely that any franchise will ever dethrone Super Mario as Nintendo’s top seller. Still, Pokémon has made a lot of money for the gaming giant – overshadowing other popular titles like The Legend of Zelda and Animal Crossing. However, the franchise has encountered many intellectual property issues, including a wild Pokémon trademark dispute appearing out of nowhere.

Nintendo is no stranger to intellectual property disputes. They recently lost a Super Mario trademark case while still engaged in a battle against the Pocketpair brand over the Palworld game. However, the latest fight Nintendo has found itself in involves one of the brand’s most adorable characters: Jigglypuff.

Surprise: Jigglypuff Isn’t a Registered Pokémon Trademark

Certain names are synonymous with Pokémon. Pikachu is certainly one of them, and Charizard is also at the top of the list. However, Jigglypuff is undeniably a fan favorite. Considering the many licensing deals involving the character between Nintendo and other brands, one would assume that the gaming company owns a trademark registration for the character.

Not only would this assumption be inaccurate, but it turns out that another brand trademarked the word “Jigglypuff” several years ago. Back in 2022, the Yiwu FeiMeng Jewelry Company secured registration over “Jigglypuff” in trademark class 14, which essentially includes various jewelry items. Of course, Jigglypuff was an original Pokémon character from 1996.

This would give Nintendo priority over the word. Interestingly enough, the company never trademarked the name. Even after decades of use and licensing agreements, a company other than Nintendo managed to secure intellectual property rights over “Jigglypuff” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Gotta Catch ’em All: Nintendo Goes After Jigglypuff

In a trademark cancellation filing submitted on April 22, 2025, Nintendo claimed that the Yiwu FeiMeng Jewelry Company should not have rights over the word “Jigglypuff.” To be clear, Nintendo does not own a federal trademark registration for the popular character. In fact, Nintendo lists “NONE” as the trademark cited as justification for their cancellation request.

However, there’s no denying that “Jigglypuff” is directly linked to the Pokémon franchise in the minds of consumers. In the filing, Nintendo states that, for decades, they “used and licensed others to use the trademark JIGGLYPUFF with a broad variety of goods and services, including trading card games, toys, jewelry, phone accessories, clothing, and bags.”

This fact seems undeniable, and to be fair, Nintendo likely has common law trademark rights over the character, its name, and anything related to Jigglypuff. Still, the trademark issue at hand underscores the importance of filing a trademark application. Failing to do so has left Nintendo in its current situation.

What Happens Now?

Nintendo currently has a lot on its plate when it comes to intellectual property disputes. However, its battle with the Yiwu FeiMeng Jewelry Company is unlikely to result in major issues. After all, “Jigglypuff” is a fairly distinctive trademark – even if Nintendo failed to secure the appropriate federal paperwork.

When a consumer hears the word “Jigglypuff,” they many are likely to think about Pokémon. Nintendo’s filing further claims that the jewelry company never actually used the trademark in commerce. If true, this would end the matter as well.

As of now, the Yiwu FeiMeng Jewelry Company has until June 1, 2025, to file an answer with the USPTO if it wants to protect its registration. If Nintendo succeeds in its efforts, it’ll likely waste no time securing the trademark for Jigglypuff. For now, a victory for the jewelry company seems less likely than capturing a wild Mewtwo on your first attempt.

…or so the kids say.

A Social Media Trademark Dispute Just Turned Ugly

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

A Social Media Trademark Dispute Just Turned Ugly

Trademark law can be complex, and in many instances, digital companies simply prefer to stay out of disputes between users. Because of this, owners of Facebook groups, Instagram profiles, and other properties on similar platforms sometimes find their pages removed due to social media trademark takedown requests. However, one dispute seems poised to get very ugly.

While most people were preparing for the upcoming Thanksgiving holiday, The American Dream U.S. Green Card Service was filing a trademark cancellation with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The target was the American Dream Law Office. Such petitions are somewhat common, but the preceding events certainly stand out.

An Unfolding Social Media Trademark Dispute

In March 2021, the USPTO granted a trademark registration to the American Dream Law Office for the term “American Dream.” This was granted after the law firm claimed they used the trademark in commerce beginning in 2020. Fast forward to September 2023, and the law firm files a trademark infringement claim with Meta, Inc. — formerly known as Facebook.

The target in the Meta complaint? A Facebook page run by The American Dream U.S. Green Card Service — which apparently had accumulated over 122,000 followers. After the trademark infringement complaint, Facebook shut down the page. Just a few months later, the American Dream Law Office filed similar complaints with YouTube, Instagram, and even the domain registrar for The American Dream U.S. Green Card Service website.

As the registered owner of “American Dream” with the USPTO, it’s not surprising that the law firm sought the removal of these pages. Social media trademark disputes often play out right before our eyes on popular platforms. However, the cancellation filing submitted by The American Dream U.S. Green Card Service throws an interesting twist into the mix.

Who Has Rightful Ownership?

Since March 2021, the American Dream Law Office has been recognized as the rightful owner of “American Dream” by the USPTO. However, trademark law in America is typically governed by who uses a particular trademark first. This is known as trademark priority. In the filing submitted by The American Dream U.S. Green Card Service, there seems to be some question over who can claim prior use.

In the Cancellation, the green card service claims they have used “The American Dream” as a trademark since at least 1996. They provided evidence that they have even had a trademark registration in Germany since 1998. They also provided multiple examples of websites that continue to advertise their services under the trademark — websites that existed long before the American Dream Law Office claimed first use.

Due to this use, the company states that they’ve secured common law trademark rights over “The American Dream.” However, even all this evidence is unlikely to sway platforms that are thrust into the middle of social media trademark disputes. These companies typically defer to USPTO registrations or courts of law, and since the American Dream Law Office has a registration, The American Dream U.S. Green Card Service was undoubtedly at a disadvantage when takedown requests were submitted.

What Happens Now?

Most social media trademark disputes never go much further than a takedown request. In many cases, these requests are submitted properly and linked to actual misuse of intellectual property. However, lawsuits regarding branding on social media are nothing new. While the dispute between the American Dream Law Office and The American Dream U.S. Green Card Service is not currently in court, it might end up in there.

At this point there’s no way to predict the decision of the USPTO. The law firm that engaged in the social media trademark takedown campaign certainly has rights over the disputed term, but it would also seem like the legal service that has used the term for decades has rights as well. The important thing to remember is that the property owned by the American Dream Law Office is not an incontestable trademark, so it could be canceled.

Of course, the law might view the petitioner’s lack of protection of their own intellectual property rights negatively. After all, the company doesn’t seem to have filed a trademark opposition when the law firm — which offers similar services — sought registration of the term three years ago. The law firm also appears to have used the trademark unimpeded for three years. Put simply, this will be an interesting case to see play out — even if not as exciting as the initial social media trademark brawl.

Rock Band Guns N’ Roses Sues Gun Store for Trademark Infringement

Posted on by Mandour & Associates

Guns N' Roses trademark lawsuit

Members of the rock band Guns N’ Roses have been open about their aversion to perceived lax gun laws in the past. This makes the band’s trademark infringement lawsuit all the more interesting. The music group claims that the Guns N’ Roses trademark is being misused by an online firearms store that calls itself “Texas Guns and Roses.” The legal dispute will no doubt shine a light on one of the most outlandish “one-stop shops” in history.

Guns N’ Roses Trademark Case Filed in Court

In a lawsuit filed in federal court, Guns N’ Roses accused Texas Guns and Roses of the “wholesale appropriation” of the band’s trademark. It’s obvious to see where this claim comes from. Separate from the addition of a descriptive state name, the two terms are essentially identical. Because of this, the band believes that the store’s name will create a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The term “Guns N’ Roses” is no doubt synonymous with the rock band. As one of the most famous music groups in history, even those who aren’t fans of the genre would know the band at first mention. This raises the question of how an online gun shop could justifiably utilize such a similar name. The answer to this rests in a small link that says “Roses” buried under the list of gun products on the website.

Upon clicking that link, you’re taken to a page where the gun shop sells four different types of flower bouquets. Every other item on the site relates to firearms and accessories, but the one page with a minimal flower selection appears to be the retailer’s justification for their name. In fact, their attorney says, “Our client sells metal safes for guns and flowers, and have a one-stop website and absolutely no one is confused.” 

Has Texas Guns and Roses Already Won?

To some, it may seem clear that the Guns N’ Roses trademark is being misappropriated. However, the issue may not be as clear-cut as the band hopes for. That’s because this isn’t their first attempt to end the gun shop’s use of their name. In addition to sending trademark cease and desist letters — which were ignored — the band also filed a trademark cancellation back in 2021. This is only surprising because it means Texas Guns and Roses was already granted a trademark.

In fact, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office registered the retailer’s log0 — which features the name — back in 2016. However, the cancellation request filed by the band could cancel the registration. The attorney for Texas Guns and Roses, though, doesn’t believe this will happen. In fact, he states that the band has filed a lawsuit simply because they believe the cancellation request is likely to fail.

Whether this is true or not remains to be seen. Still, with a TTAB proceeding and a federal lawsuit pending regarding the Guns N’ Roses trademark, there will undoubtedly be plenty of legal maneuvering on both sides. Assuming the gun retailer can convince a judge there will be no consumer confusion, though, is it possible that the rock band could still prevail? Potentially.

What Happens Next?

It’s possible that the gun retailer Texas Guns and Roses may convince a judge and the TTAB that no likelihood of confusion exists. However, this is not the only way to prove trademark infringement. In their cancellation request, the band also claims that the use of the similar name will create trademark dilution. With this claim, the band is saying that their connection to the name “Guns N’ Roses” could be weakened in consumer minds — or that the gun store’s use of the name could tarnish the band’s intellectual property.

They further assert this belief in their lawsuit by stating that the retailer is in a business that causes great divisiveness in America. This is no doubt true, and members of the band have voiced their support for stricter gun laws in the past. However, it’s now up to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board — along with a federal court — to decide whether the Guns N’ Roses trademark is protected from the similar descriptive use undertaken by the firearms store. With a battle unfolding on multiple legal fronts, Texas Guns and Roses better be locked and loaded.

California Trademark Attorneys

We serve the following localities: Los Angeles County, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, North Hollywood, Pacific Palisades, Redondo Beach, Whittier, Orange County, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, San Diego County, Carlsbad, Encinitas, La Jolla, Oceanside, and San Diego.

San Diego Trademark Attorney

16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400
San Diego, California 92127

Phone: (858) 487-9300
Click to Contact us

Orange County Trademark Attorney

2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
Irvine, California 92614

Phone: (949) 474-9330
Click to Contact us

Los Angeles Trademark Attorney

12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 810
Los Angeles, California 90025

Phone: (310) 656-3900
Click to Contact us

©2018 – Mandour & Associates, APC – All Rights Reserved
Aggressive Intellectual Property Litigators® – Trademark Attorneys – Patent Lawyers – Copyright Attorneys

Disclaimer: The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation.
This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.