A California apparel company wants nearly $1 million back after losing a trademark battle over four words that have represented the US Army since 1778.
The Appeal and What’s at Stake
TWD, LLC owes Grunt Style nearly $1 million after a jury trial in the Northern District of Illinois. The damages totaled $739,500, plus $229,235.38 in pre-judgment interest. On January 29, 2026, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments questioning whether “This We’ll Defend” deserves trademark protection at all.
Tim Bauer founded TWD in 2013 after discovering the phrase nine years earlier while researching historical American flags. The motto traces back to the War Office of the Continental Congress in 1778, making it older than the Constitution itself. Bauer built a business around it, eventually securing US Trademark No. 4880766.
Daniel Alarik had different plans. The Army veteran and former drill sergeant founded Grunt Style in 2009, selling patriotic apparel that prominently featured the phrase. His company filed for trademark protection in 2015 under Serial No. 86755035 and later claimed common law rights dating back to its founding.
Both companies target the same market: veterans and patriotic consumers who respond to military-themed merchandise. Both believed they had legitimate claims to the phrase. Judge LaShonda A. Hunt’s jury trial in March 2024 sided with Grunt Style, but the appellate judges seemed skeptical. Their questions during oral argument cut to the heart of the dispute: Can anyone own a phrase that has belonged to the Army for 248 years?
Common Law Rights and the Genericness Question
Grunt Style built its case on a simple timeline. The company started using “This We’ll Defend” in commerce in 2009. TWD entered the market four years later. Under trademark law, the first party to use a mark in commerce owns the rights to it.
Priority of use is foundational to the federal trademark registration process and the rights that flow from it. Grunt Style documented sales, marketing materials, and product catalogs showing consistent use of the phrase on apparel from 2009 forward. The district court found this evidence persuasive enough to award damages and interest totaling nearly $1 million.
TWD’s appeal takes a different approach. The company argues that “This We’ll Defend” is generic for military and patriotic merchandise. Generic terms identify a category rather than a source. You cannot trademark “computer” for computers or “beer” for beer. TWD contends the phrase functions the same way: it describes a category of patriotic military goods rather than identifying Grunt Style as the source.
The argument has teeth because of the phrase’s history. The Army has used “This We’ll Defend” as its official motto for nearly 250 years. It appears on the Army flag, on official communications, and throughout military culture. When consumers see those words on apparel, TWD argues they think “Army” rather than “Grunt Style.”
Trademark law recognizes a spectrum from generic to fanciful. Generic marks receive no protection. Descriptive marks require proof of secondary meaning. Suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks receive protection more readily. The 7th Circuit must decide where a centuries-old military motto falls on that spectrum. If the phrase primarily identifies the Army rather than any commercial source, Grunt Style’s trademark may be invalid regardless of how long they’ve used it.
The counter-argument is equally direct. Grunt Style created a commercial association through continuous use on specific products. Consumers who see “This We’ll Defend” on a particular style of t-shirt, hoodie, or hat may well associate it with Grunt Style. The question is whether that commercial association can coexist with the phrase’s deeper historical meaning.
The Veteran Apparel Market and Broader Implications
The military and patriotic apparel market generates billions in annual revenue. Companies like Grunt Style, Nine Line Apparel, and dozens of smaller brands compete for veteran and military enthusiast consumers. They sell shirts, hats, hoodies, and accessories featuring military phrases, unit insignia, and patriotic imagery.
The Army itself controls significant intellectual property through its Trademark Licensing Program. Official Army logos, the star symbol, and certain phrases require licensing agreements for commercial use. But historical phrases and mottos occupy grayer territory. The Army has never claimed exclusive rights to “This We’ll Defend” for commercial purposes.
This gap creates tension between honoring military heritage and asserting commercial trademark rights. Veterans who served feel a personal connection to phrases like “This We’ll Defend.” Businesses built by veterans want to protect their trademarks in that space. The result is disputes like this one, where multiple parties believe they have legitimate claims to the same mark.
A TWD victory could invite challenges against other military phrase trademarks. If “This We’ll Defend” is too generic for protection, what about “Semper Fi,” “De Oppresso Liber,” or “Rangers Lead the Way”? Each has deep military roots. Each appears on commercial merchandise. A ruling that historic military phrases cannot function as trademarks would reshape the entire veteran apparel industry.
A Grunt Style victory would confirm the opposite: consistent commercial use can establish trademark rights even in phrases with long histories. Companies that invest in building brand recognition around historic phrases would retain the ability to protect that investment. The market would continue operating as it has, with different companies claiming rights to different military-associated terms.
Neither outcome is purely theoretical. Millions of dollars in brand value depend on how the 7th Circuit interprets the relationship between historical significance and commercial ownership.
What Businesses Can Learn Before Adopting Historic Phrases
The safest path is knowing what you’re getting into before you build a brand. Conducting a thorough trademark search before adopting any phrase with historical associations reveals who else claims rights to it. Grunt Style and TWD might have avoided years of litigation if either company had discovered the other’s plans early enough to negotiate or pivot.
Documentation matters from day one. Grunt Style won at trial partly because it could show consistent use since 2009 through dated invoices, marketing materials, and product catalogs. If you’re going to claim priority, you need evidence. Photographs with metadata, business records, and dated advertising establish when your use began.
Understanding the limits of trademark protection helps set realistic expectations. A phrase used by millions of people for centuries faces inherent challenges as a trademark. The more common the phrase, the harder it becomes to claim exclusive rights. “This We’ll Defend” sits at one end of that spectrum. A coined term like “Grunt Style” sits at the other.
Federal registration provides stronger rights than common law alone. Grunt Style eventually obtained a federal registration, giving it presumptive nationwide rights and the ability to sue in federal court. The filing fee for a trademark application runs $250 to $350 per class. The trial verdict in this case exceeded $968,000. Early registration is cheap insurance against expensive disputes.
Building distinctive commercial associations separates your brand from the phrase’s generic meaning. If consumers associate specific product designs, quality standards, or brand experiences with your use of a historic phrase, that commercial meaning can coexist with the phrase’s historical significance. The work happens through consistent branding, quality control, and marketing that connects the phrase to your specific goods.
Monitoring your market identifies competitors using similar phrases before disputes escalate. TWD entered the market four years after Grunt Style. Earlier detection might have enabled negotiation, licensing, or legal action before both companies had invested heavily in competing uses.
Protecting Your Brand in Uncertain Territory
The 7th Circuit’s skeptical questions reveal a truth that extends beyond this case: even long-established trademark uses face challenges when the underlying phrase has historical significance. You might use a phrase for years, build a successful business around it, and still face arguments that the phrase is too common to protect.
When I analyze trademark applications, I assess whether proposed marks face genericness or descriptiveness obstacles before clients invest in building brand recognition. A phrase that seems distinctive in your industry might have broader meanings that weaken its trademark potential. Understanding those limitations early allows for informed decisions about brand development strategy.
Whether you’re building a brand around a phrase with historical roots or defending trademark rights you’ve already established, I can help assess your mark’s strength and develop appropriate protection strategies. Contact me for a consultation to discuss how trademark law applies to your specific situation.
