On August 10, 2026, the Chicago Cubs and Washington Nationals asked the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board to refuse registration of THE W for apparel. Their opposition puts WNBA Enterprises LLC’s pending clothing application alongside earlier W-formative marks that the baseball clubs say cover the same commercial territory. A short phrase can generate a detailed trademark record.
The Filing Put Three Sports Brands On One Docket
The dispute is TTAB Opposition No. 91309516. The Cubs and Nationals oppose U.S. Application Serial No. 99105898, which seeks registration for THE W in standard characters. According to the TTABVUE opposition record, WNBA Enterprises LLC filed the application for International Class 25 goods. The list includes sports jerseys, clothing jerseys, hoodies and sweatshirts, caps and hats, shirts and tee-shirts, cardigans and sweaters, footwear, socks, outer jackets, shorts, and pants.
The dates make the posture clear. WNBA Enterprises LLC filed on March 26, 2025 on an intent-to-use basis. The application published for opposition on February 10, 2026. The Cubs and Nationals filed their opposition on August 10, 2026, and the Board instituted the proceeding that day. Its case history lists October 9, 2026 as the WNBA’s answer deadline.
The clubs’ notice asks the Board to refuse registration. They say their earlier W-formative marks conflict with THE W because the application covers identical or closely related clothing goods. The Board has not decided those allegations. For now, the docket captures a contest over how a new apparel mark fits beside existing sports identifiers.
The case has a narrow starting point. It concerns an application, a notice of opposition, and a defined list of apparel goods. The marks identified by the clubs include more than one form of W, while THE W appears in words. When I read a docket like this, that combination signals factual questions for each side to address as the proceeding develops. The arguments have only begun.
Why A Standard-Character Mark Changes The Fight
The opposition pleads priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act. In practical terms, the Cubs and Nationals must support their claim that they hold earlier rights and that consumers could mistake THE W apparel for goods connected with their marks. The comparison is not a referendum on the appeal of a short name. It concerns the parties’ marks, the listed goods, and the evidence in the proceeding.
THE W was filed as a standard-character mark. That format claims the words rather than a specific font, color, or logo treatment. The point is important here because the notice identifies W-formative marks and designs, while the WNBA application seeks the wording THE W. The filing therefore places the shared letter and the apparel categories at the center of the parties’ competing arguments.
In the filed opposition papers, the clubs identify earlier registrations, including Registration No. 5424583 for a Washington Nationals W design covering Class 25 clothing. They allege that their marks predate the application and that their clothing goods are identical or closely related to the goods in the WNBA application. They also contend that adding THE does not sufficiently distinguish THE W in this setting. Those are the opposers’ allegations, awaiting proof and a Board decision.
Similarity is evaluated in context. Words, designs, sound, and commercial impression may each shape the comparison, while the goods frame how the marks reach customers. The clubs’ filing puts weight on the shared W and on apparel. The WNBA’s application places THE W in standard characters. The Board will evaluate the arguments and evidence submitted by the parties under that record.
The filing identifies what the clubs plan to prove. Evidence will determine how the marks, the goods, and the commercial setting bear on the registration question. That is why a pending opposition deserves careful reading rather than a headline-level conclusion.
The relief requested also helps define the case. The clubs seek refusal of the application, not a damages award in this TTAB proceeding. My guide to the TTAB opposition process explains why an opposition centers on whether a pending application should register.
Sports Merchandising Turns A Letter Into A Source Signal
Sports marks do significant work on merchandise. A team word, phrase, or letter can appear on a jersey, hat, or sweatshirt with little additional context. That makes the match between a mark and its goods especially important when the goods are fan-facing apparel. In this opposition, the detailed Class 25 list keeps that question concrete.
The Cubs’ W has its own public history. The club says its Wrigley Field tradition of flying a W flag after victories dates to 1937. That context helps explain why the Cubs treat a W as meaningful team symbolism. It does not resolve the opposition, which still turns on the marks and goods presented to the Board.
Merchandise also gives a compact mark repeated exposure. A hat may show little more than a letter or a short phrase. A jersey can place the same symbol beside a team name, player name, or other branding. Those different presentations affect the commercial setting that the parties will address. The opposition itself remains focused on THE W and the registrations the clubs chose to plead.
THE W is a phrase. The registrations cited in the notice include W-formative marks and designs. The clubs argue that the shared W and the overlapping apparel category could cause purchasers to assume a common source. The WNBA may present its own arguments after it answers. The current record does not permit a shortcut from that allegation to a result.
That distinction between history and the present filing is useful for brand owners. When I assess a short sports mark, I separate historic context from the facts the record requires. A familiar symbol may carry long-developed meaning for one organization, while a proposed phrase may have a separate intended role. Clearance asks whether those positions can coexist for the goods at issue.
Short identifiers can gather meaning through repeated use on branded goods. That is why a clearance review needs to look beyond a proposed word in isolation and consider how it will appear on the actual products. Readers who want club-specific background can review the Cubs’ broader trademark record.
Clear The Word Mark Before The Merchandise Rollout
This docket shows why timing belongs in a naming decision. A trademark application can proceed through filing, examination, and publication before another rights holder raises a formal opposition. By the time that happens, the applicant has a Board deadline to meet and a disputed record to assess. Clearance is most useful before the product plan becomes difficult to change.
When I assess a proposed mark, I look beyond an exact-name search. I compare the wording with registrations, pending applications, relevant common-law uses, the planned goods, and the setting in which customers will encounter the brand. For an apparel mark, that analysis should account for the product types, the branding on the goods, and the commercial context surrounding the sale.
The business should define that plan before filing. I want to know the chosen name, likely variations, logo treatments, product categories, sales channels, and any licensing or co-branding arrangement. Those details help reveal whether a short name sits too close to an earlier mark before inventory, packaging, and promotion build around it.
The order of that work matters. A name can look available during an early brainstorming session and raise a different question once the business specifies that it will appear on jerseys, caps, and shirts. A careful review connects the proposed mark to the actual commercial plan. It also gives the business room to refine the name, the goods description, or the timing before an application becomes public.
That early review also creates a practical record for later decisions. A business may change its product range, add a sales channel, or introduce a licensing partner as the launch gets closer. Each change can alter the way the mark and goods should be compared. Revisiting the analysis before public marketing helps keep the application aligned with the actual plan.
A distinct logo may be part of a sound brand plan, but it does not change the wording claimed in a standard-character application. The filing needs to match the mark the business intends to use and the goods it intends to offer. A professional trademark search before a merchandise launch gives that conversation a factual starting point.
A Short Name Can Still Create A Long Dispute
The opposition to THE W is a reminder that brevity does not eliminate trademark risk. Before committing to an apparel name, ask whether earlier marks, applications, and marketplace uses reach the goods you plan to sell. That work belongs before the packaging, production schedule, and public launch begin to narrow the available choices.
I help founders, business owners, and event organizers evaluate a proposed mark alongside the relevant goods, registrations, pending applications, and marketplace uses. Then I explain the practical choices in plain language, so they can decide whether to proceed, refine the mark, or reconsider the filing plan.
If you are developing a brand name or preparing an apparel launch, contact me for a consultation about a trademark clearance and protection strategy.
