Understanding Why Modified Trademarks Still Infringe Existing Rights
Adding “(Bill’s Version)” to already trademarked slogans doesn’t make them yours. It might seem obvious, yet this simple lesson in trademark law was missed entirely by Bill Belichick and his girlfriend, Jordan Hudson. Last month, their new venture, TCE Rights Management, suffered a very public and somewhat embarrassing defeat when the U.S. Trademark Office rejected four trademark applications they had filed.
Trademark Filings That Sparked Legal Pushback
Belichick and Hudson filed for trademarks on several familiar-sounding phrases:
- “Do Your Job (Bill’s Version)”
- “No Days Off (Bill’s Version)”
- “Ignore the Noise (Bill’s Version)”
- “The Belestrator (Bill’s Version)”
These aren’t just catchy phrases pulled from thin air. Each one is already a registered trademark held by Belichick’s former team, the New England Patriots. These trademarks date back to when Belichick was leading the Patriots through championship-winning seasons.
Attempting to claim ownership of these phrases—simply by adding the parenthetical “(Bill’s Version)”—quickly triggered objections from the Patriots organization.
Preventing Consumer Confusion: The Core Purpose of Trademark Law
Trademark law fundamentally protects consumers from confusion, clearly delineating brand ownership and sponsorship. The Patriots swiftly argued that the new trademark filings by Belichick and Hudson could easily mislead consumers regarding the source or sponsorship of the goods or services being marketed. It’s an obvious point but apparently overlooked by the couple. As one trademark attorney colorfully explained, attempting to trademark something as recognizable as “Nike Shoes (Josh’s Version)” is both legally untenable and commercially absurd.
This trademark blunder goes beyond legal misunderstandings—it also highlights a broader misunderstanding of intellectual property law. Belichick and Hudson’s misguided inspiration appears to come from Taylor Swift’s successful move to re-record and market her older songs under the label “Taylor’s Version.” However, this strategy works for Swift because her issue was one of copyright control, not trademark confusion. Trademarks exist to prevent marketplace confusion and protect brand identity, not to facilitate subtle renaming or rebranding efforts by disgruntled former associates.
Trademark Law vs. Copyright Law: The Taylor Swift Misinterpretation
Interestingly, the "Version" tactic appears directly inspired by Taylor Swift’s high-profile effort to reclaim her original recordings by re-recording her older songs as "Taylor’s Version." But this comparison fundamentally misunderstands critical differences in intellectual property law:
- Copyright Law: Taylor Swift's approach involved creating and controlling new sound recordings of her original compositions, a strategy clearly protected by copyright law.
- Trademark Law: Trademarks are designed to protect branding elements and prevent consumer confusion regarding the source or sponsorship of products and services.
Swift's strategy works because it adheres precisely to copyright law principles. Conversely, trademarks protect branding language and consumer recognition. Belichick and Hudson’s attempt confused these two distinct areas of intellectual property law, resulting in a misguided and legally untenable approach.
Context and Relationship Factors in Trademark Disputes
Beyond the legal misstep, this trademark attempt overlooked another crucial factor: Belichick’s strained relationship with the Patriots. This acrimony has been public, with Belichick going as far as to ban Patriot scouts from attending practices of his current team, the Tar Heels. Given this context, it's puzzling—and frankly, ill-advised—that Belichick and Hudson would expect cooperation or leniency from the Patriots in a matter involving protected trademarks.
Why Effective Legal Counsel Matters in Trademark Strategy
This legal embarrassment was entirely avoidable. The most plausible scenario is that Belichick and Hudson received clear legal advice outlining the significant challenges—existing trademark registrations, likelihood of consumer confusion, and very slim odds of success. Still, they chose to proceed, perhaps driven by an overly simplistic logic: "It worked for Taylor."
However, trademark and copyright laws do not operate interchangeably, and this flawed reasoning underscores a crucial point about hiring legal counsel. The takeaway is clear and essential for anyone navigating trademark or broader intellectual property law: never hire an attorney who simply caves to your own legal assumptions or "expertise." Instead, retain counsel who provides clear, direct advice—even when that advice is a resounding "no."
Legal Counsel: Why Your Lawyer Must Say “No”
In other words, if your lawyer isn’t occasionally telling you something you don’t want to hear, it might be time to find another lawyer. A trusted advisor should protect your business by guiding you away from preventable legal disasters, rather than allowing you to stumble into them headfirst.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Refusals often turn on similarity between the marks, overlap in goods/services, and how consumers encounter them in the marketplace. Examiners weigh multiple factors, including the marks’ appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression, as well as trade channels and purchaser sophistication.
- Usually not. Adding non‑distinctive wording rarely changes the overall commercial impression if the dominant portion matches an existing mark for related goods/services. Minor modifications can still create a likelihood of confusion and lead to refusal or infringement risk.
- Limited doctrines such as descriptive or nominative fair use may allow references when used truthfully to describe your own goods/services or to identify another’s product when necessary. Uses must avoid implying sponsorship or endorsement and should only use what is reasonably necessary.
- Engage counsel promptly. For USPTO Office Actions, responses are due within the stated deadline (often six months). Options may include amending identifications, submitting evidence, or arguing distinctiveness. For demand letters, evaluate risk, consider adjustments, and explore resolution strategies.
- Conduct comprehensive clearance searches (federal, state, common‑law, and domain/social), assess potential confusion, and file early. Prepare specimens that show proper trademark use, and consider consent/coexistence agreements or rebranding if conflicts are likely. Ongoing brand guidelines help maintain consistent, protectable use.
Protect Your Brand with Trusted Trademark Counsel
Trademark mistakes can be costly and public. If you’re navigating branding, licensing, or ownership rights, seek experienced legal guidance early. A knowledgeable intellectual property attorney can help you evaluate risk, structure filings correctly, and ensure your trademarks are protected before costly errors occur. Contact us today.