When All Elite Wrestling filed its trademark application for “AEW Shockwave” on September 6, 2024, the company likely anticipated a straightforward path to registration for what insiders believed would be a new television program. Instead, that filing triggered a federal trademark opposition that landed both AEW and the National Wrestling Alliance in a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding that may not be resolved until well into 2026. The dispute centers on whether consumers might confuse AEW’s proposed mark with NWA’s “NWA Shockwave” brand, which Billy Corgan’s Lightning One company claims to have used continuously since December 2020 for YouTube programming and live events.
When a September Filing Triggers a June Opposition
AEW’s trademark application landed at the USPTO on September 6, 2024, filed under an “intent to use” basis for entertainment services, specifically a television program. Wrestling media outlets immediately noticed the filing, with speculation building that AEW planned to launch a new show, possibly on Fox. That speculation intensified when video surfaced of wrestler Swerve Strickland discussing potential new programming opportunities.
The NWA responded swiftly. Just 17 days later, on September 23, 2024, Billy Corgan’s Lightning One company filed its own application for “NWA Shockwave.” Unlike AEW’s intent-to-use filing, the NWA claimed actual use in commerce dating to December 1, 2020, when it launched a YouTube series under that name. The NWA also pointed to predecessor owners using “Shockwave” for events from 2005 through 2012. Three days later, on September 26, 2024, NWA attorneys sent AEW a demand letter insisting that AEW abandon its application and agree not to use any variation of “Shockwave” that could create marketplace confusion.
AEW apparently declined to respond to that demand. The NWA escalated on June 5, 2025, filing a formal opposition to AEW’s application before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The opposition asserted continuous use of “NWA Shockwave” since December 2020 and claimed superior rights to the mark. Just 19 days later, on June 24, 2025, the USPTO granted the NWA’s own registration for “NWA Shockwave,” giving the company a registered mark while AEW’s application remained in limbo.
AEW filed its answer to the opposition on July 15, 2025, denying the NWA’s claims. AEW’s legal team argued that the NWA had not used “Shockwave” continuously since 2020, pointing to gaps in the NWA’s usage. They also contended that the marks were not confusingly similar despite both incorporating “Shockwave,” and that the NWA would suffer no harm from AEW’s use of the name. The matter now sits before the TTAB in what could become a protracted legal battle, with resolution unlikely before 2026.
How Trademark Opposition Proceedings Actually Work
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board functions as a specialized court within the USPTO, handling disputes over trademark applications and registrations. When someone files an opposition, they’re essentially challenging whether an application should proceed to registration. These proceedings resemble mini-trials, with discovery, witness testimony, and legal briefs, though they unfold on paper rather than in a courtroom.
The filing basis difference between these applications matters significantly. AEW filed under Section 1(b), an “intent to use” basis, meaning they planned to use the mark but hadn’t yet done so in commerce. The NWA filed under Section 1(a), a “use in commerce” basis, claiming actual commercial use since December 2020. This distinction gives the NWA a strategic advantage. In trademark law, actual use trumps mere intent. When I prepare likelihood of confusion analyses for clients, this timing question often becomes pivotal. The party who used a mark first generally holds superior rights, even if they filed their application later.
The TTAB will evaluate this dispute through the likelihood of confusion framework. Courts and the TTAB examine several factors: How similar are the marks in appearance, sound, and meaning? How related are the goods or services? How strong or distinctive is the opposer’s mark? Do the parties use similar marketing channels? Most critically, is there evidence that consumers have actually confused the marks?
In this case, both marks incorporate “Shockwave,” though each adds a different prefix. The marks target identical services: professional wrestling entertainment. Both parties reach the same audience through streaming and live events. The shared “Shockwave” term weakens the distinctiveness of either mark, since neither party coined the word. The prefixes “AEW” and “NWA” do add some differentiation, but in a tight-knit fan community where viewers follow multiple promotions, those prefixes might not prevent confusion about whether the programs share a common source.
The procedural timeline for TTAB cases extends far beyond what most applicants expect. Discovery alone can consume six months. The testimony period follows, where parties submit written declarations. Then come the briefing phases. From filing to final decision, these proceedings can take up to 18 months or longer if either party requests extensions. The proceeding can end in several ways: AEW could abandon its application, the NWA could withdraw its opposition, or the TTAB could issue a decision either sustaining the opposition or dismissing it.
When Wrestling’s Territorial Past Meets Its Competitive Present
Professional wrestling operated under a gentlemen’s agreement for decades. Regional promotions controlled specific territories with minimal overlap. The NWA itself functioned as a governing body for these territories, with member promotions sharing the NWA World Heavyweight Championship while maintaining distinct regional identities. Geographic separation meant trademark conflicts rarely arose. A promotion in Tennessee didn’t worry about confusion with a promotion in Oregon because fans in those markets never encountered both brands.
That territorial system collapsed in the 1980s when national television enabled promotions to reach audiences everywhere simultaneously. Today’s wrestling landscape features multiple national promotions competing for the same viewers. AEW runs weekly shows on TBS and TRU TV, reaching millions of households. The NWA, while smaller than its territorial heyday, maintains presence through streaming and YouTube, where its programming attracts dedicated viewers. Both promotions run live events, sell merchandise, and compete for the same pool of wrestling talent and fans.
This creates collision risks that didn’t exist in wrestling’s territorial era. Modern wrestling fans don’t pledge loyalty to a single promotion. They watch AEW on Wednesday nights, WWE on Fridays, and might catch NWA programming on YouTube over the weekend. They attend live events from multiple companies. Social media amplifies this cross-pollination, with fans discussing storylines across promotional boundaries. When the same fans encounter “Shockwave” in multiple contexts, confusion about the source becomes plausible.
Digital distribution fundamentally changed how geographic markets work for trademark purposes. The NWA’s YouTube series reaches viewers nationwide and internationally, despite the company lacking AEW’s television presence. Streaming platforms erase the geographic boundaries that once separated wrestling territories. A fan in Iowa can access NWA content as easily as someone in Tennessee, the NWA’s traditional stronghold. This digital reach matters for likelihood of confusion analysis. Even though the NWA’s current market share pales compared to AEW’s, their marks compete in the same digital marketplace where audience overlap is substantial.
The tension between legacy and current market position adds complexity. The NWA can trace its lineage back decades, giving it historical significance that resonates with long-time wrestling fans. AEW launched in 2019 but quickly became a major player with substantial financial backing and television deals. The NWA argues its decades of history and documented use of “Shockwave” should prevail. AEW counters that adding “AEW” creates sufficient distinction and that the NWA’s gaps in usage undermine its continuity claims. The TTAB must weigh whether the NWA’s legacy usage outweighs AEW’s current market dominance and whether prefix additions prevent the confusion that trademark law seeks to avoid.
How to Avoid These Expensive Brand Collisions
Prevention starts with clearance searches before filing trademark applications or launching new brands. A professional trademark search examines not just exact matches but similar terms that could trigger opposition. For entertainment companies planning new programming, the search should cover all variations of proposed names, including different prefix combinations and phonetic equivalents. When working with entertainment clients on clearance searches, I examine federal registrations, pending applications, state registrations, and common law uses documented online. This search would have revealed the NWA’s prior usage and previous “Shockwave” events, allowing AEW to assess the risk before investing in the mark.
Documentation of actual use provides critical advantages in potential disputes. Companies should build evidence from day one. Screenshots of promotional materials, dated videos showing the mark in commerce, contracts with venues using the name, social media posts, and merchandise sales records all establish a timeline of continuous use. The NWA’s ability to point to YouTube videos from December 2020 and subsequent events in January 2025 gave them concrete evidence for their use-in-commerce claim. Companies that launch brands without documentation face difficulty proving their use dates if challenged later.
Strategic timing decisions affect both filing basis choice and competitive positioning. Filing before public announcements keeps plans confidential and secures priority dates before competitors react. The decision between intent-to-use and use-in-commerce filings carries significant implications. Intent-to-use applications provide flexibility for brands still in development, but they lack the strength of actual use. Companies with documented commercial use should file on that basis whenever possible. The gap between AEW’s September 6 filing and the NWA’s September 23 response shows how quickly competitors can mobilize. Earlier filing or actual use before filing might have strengthened AEW’s position.
Monitoring systems catch competitive filings before they mature into registered marks. Setting up alerts for trademark applications in your industry sector allows companies to spot potential conflicts early. Opposition periods provide a window to challenge problematic applications before registration. Companies can also file statements of use or extensions more strategically when they know competitors have filed similar marks. Domain name and social media account registration should coordinate with trademark strategy. Securing consistent branding across platforms reinforces the mark’s distinctiveness and provides additional evidence of use. A company that uses “Shockwave” for YouTube content, live events, and social media presents a stronger continuity claim than one with sporadic or limited usage.
Don’t Let Competitors Block Your Brand Launch
Waiting until you face opposition means expensive defense costs, lost launch momentum, and potential abandonment of brands you’ve already invested in promoting. Competitors who file first can block your plans entirely, forcing costly rebranding right when you need to focus on content and growth. Legal fees for defending against trademark opposition far exceed the cost of clearance searches and strategic filing guidance. The TTAB proceeding between AEW and NWA will likely generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal expenses for both parties.
When I work with entertainment companies on trademark protection, the process starts with clearance searches examining federal databases, state records, and common law uses to identify potential conflicts before filing. Strategic guidance on use versus intent-to-use decisions helps clients make informed choices based on their launch timeline and documentation. Application monitoring tracks competitive filings in your space, allowing you to respond before conflicting marks gain registration. Building documentation systems from day one creates the evidence trail needed to prove continuous use claims if disputes arise later.
Contact me today to discuss your entertainment brand protection needs. Whether you’re launching new programming, expanding into new markets, or protecting existing brands, professional trademark guidance prevents the expensive opposition battles that derail brand launches. Schedule a consultation so we can develop a clearance search and filing strategy that protects your brand before competitors file applications that block your plans.
