Análisis de la pugna a tres bandas por los derechos de propiedad intelectual de «Iceman»

Chicago Bears quarterback Caleb Williams filed four trademark applications for the mark “Iceman” on March 16, seeking to protect the nickname he earned during a breakout NFL season.[1]

Four days later, NBA Hall of Famer George Gervin, who has been known as “The Iceman” since the mid-1970s, filed two competing applications of his own.[2]

Lurking in the shadows is UFC Hall of Famer Chuck Liddell, who holds two preapproved applications filed in 2022 that may render the Williams-Gervin conflict moot.[3]

Even if Gervin prevails over Williams, his path to registration likely runs through a cancellation proceeding against Liddell’s mark.

The Core Dispute

Trademark rights in the U.S. arise from use in commerce, not from registration alone. The Lanham Act’s first-to-use framework means that a party who can demonstrate earlier, continuous commercial use of a mark holds superior rights over a later filer. This principle is the backbone of Gervin’s case against Williams.

Williams filed on an intent-to-use basis under Section 1(b), meaning he had not yet commenced commercial use of “Iceman” in connection with any of the applied-for goods and services — apparel, sporting goods, eyewear, accessories and various entertainment services.

Gervin’s applications present a split posture. One application claims a first-use date of 1980 for Class 41 entertainment services (personal appearances and basketball camps), but claims an intent-to-use basis for overlapping apparel categories.

This distinction is critical. Gervin holds a plausible priority claim stretching back over four decades for entertainment services, but for clothing and merchandise, he and Williams start from the same position: Neither has commenced use.

Entertainment Services: Where Gervin Is Strongest

To prevail on entertainment services, however, Gervin must do more than prove he has been called “The Iceman” since 1980. He must show he has used “Iceman” as a trademark — that is, as a source identifier in connection with the sale or advertising of entertainment services in commerce.

There is a meaningful distinction between a nickname and a trademark. A nickname is how the public refers to someone; a trademark is a designation used by the mark owner to identify the source of goods or services and distinguish them from those of others.

When a sports personality markets paid appearances, autograph sessions or camps under a particular name, that name functions as a service mark. When the same name appears only as a biographical reference — George Gervin, also known as “The Iceman” — it is operating as a descriptor, not a brand.

This distinction matters because the specimens Gervin submitted with his application screenshots from his personal website feature a small number of promotional videos.[4]

Williams may be positioned to argue that these specimens are insufficient to establish trademark use if “Iceman” appears on the site merely as a nickname reference, rather than as a source identifier prominently displayed in connection with the advertising or rendering of entertainment services.

If Gervin can supplement the record, for example with evidence of appearance contracts where “Iceman” is the billed name, promotional flyers for basketball camps marketed under the “Iceman” brand, or advertising materials from Gervin Global Management that use the mark “Iceman” as a source identifier, then his legal position would be enhanced.

But on the current specimens alone, Williams has a credible counterargument that Gervin has not demonstrated the type of trademark use the Lanham Act requires.

The Linsanity Precedent: When Notoriety Works Without Continuous Use

There is a statutory pathway that sidesteps the commercial use question, and the “Linsanity” saga illustrates how it operates.

In February 2012, an undrafted, formerly overlooked NBA basketball player, Jeremy Lin, became an overnight sensation after leading the New York Knicks on a massive winning streak. The press dubbed his performance as “Linsanity.”

Later that month, at least 10 third-party applicants filed for “Linsanity” at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including one who claimed actual use dating to 2010,[5] before or alongside Jeremy Lin’s own intent-to-use application filed on Feb. 13, 2012.[6]

One applicant, Andrew Slayton, Lin’s former high school basketball coach, filed on a use-in-commerce basis claiming first use as early as July 2010, when he registered the domain linsanity.com and began selling Lin-themed T-shirts nearly two years before Lin’s breakout with the Knicks.[7]

Despite the fact that these applicants technically had priority by filing first and, in Slayton’s case, by claiming actual commercial use before Lin, the USPTO refused every competing application on two independent grounds.

Under Section 2(a), the USPTO found that “Linsanity” falsely suggests a connection with Jeremy Lin because the mark points uniquely and unmistakably to him.

Under Section 2(c), the USPTO concluded that “Linsanity” identifies a particular living individual without his written consent, since the mark incorporates Lin’s entire surname and the consuming public overwhelmingly associated the term with him.

This precedent could help Gervin if the TTAB finds that “Iceman” points uniquely to him. But the analogy has limits: “Linsanity” contained Lin’s actual surname and identified a single person. “Iceman” is a common English word associated with at least three living athletes. Whether it points uniquely and unmistakably to Gervin in a sports-merchandise context is a genuine factual question.

The Liddell Problem: The Application That Could Beat Them All

The analysis shifts dramatically for clothing and merchandise. Gervin’s own applications acknowledge that he has not yet begun using the “Iceman” mark in connection with apparel by filing on an intent-to-use basis for T-shirts, hats, wristbands and sweatshirts. Williams filed on the same basis. So, neither party can claim priority through actual use in this category.

This is where the dispute transforms from a two-party contest into a three-party problem and where Chuck Liddell’s position becomes decisive.

The element of this dispute that has received the least attention could be the most consequential.

On April 21, 2022, nearly four years before either Williams or Gervin filed, Charles David Liddell, UFC Hall of Famer and one of the most iconic figures in the history of mixed martial arts, often referred to as “The Iceman” due to his aggressive striking style, filed trademark applications for “Chuck ‘The Iceaman’ Liddel,” one covering clothing and sports equipment in Classes 25 and 28,[8] and the other covering energy drinks and alcoholic beverages.[9]

Both applications have already been examined and approved by the USPTO, meaning they have cleared the substantive hurdles, and once evidence of use is filed and accepted, they can proceed to registration.

If Liddell files acceptable proof of use, his registrations would issue and the USPTO would have cited registrations it can use to refuse both Williams’ and Gervin’s applications on likelihood-of-confusion grounds under Section 2(d).

The overlap in goods with one of the applications is direct as it covers the same apparel categories at the center of the Williams-Gervin conflict. Notably, Liddell did not file for Class 41 entertainment services, the category where Gervin claims use since 1980.

Gervin’s path to registration for entertainment services is therefore not directly blocked by Liddell’s applications, giving him a clearer lane in the category where his prior use evidence is strongest. However, a likelihood-of-confusion argument remains possible given the overlap between entertainment services and associated merchandise.

This means Gervin faces a two-front battle. Even if he successfully opposes Williams, Liddell’s registration could independently block Gervin’s path. To clear that obstacle, Gervin would need to file a petition for cancellation, asserting that Liddell’s mark creates a likelihood of confusion with Gervin’s prior common law rights or falsely suggests a connection with him under Section 2(a).

A cancellation proceeding is a separate Trademark Trial and Appeal Board action directed at an already-issued registration requiring Gervin to prove the same elements of prior use and fame, but against a registrant who cleared examination without objection.

For Williams, the path is equally difficult. A registered Liddell mark could block him independently of Gervin’s opposition. Any comprehensive resolution likely requires three-party coordination, not two.

Practical Takeaways

File early, even before use. An intent to use application can stake out priority, block later filers and put you ahead of conflicts that fame alone will not prevent.

Monitor the register and oppose conflicting applications. Liddell’s applications were publicly available for years. Gervin’s failure to oppose them during the 30-day window is a missed opportunity in this dispute, as it would have been far simpler and cheaper than the cancellation proceeding he likely now faces.

Preserve evidence of trademark use as it happens. Professional athletes, like businesses, should maintain records of how their marks are used in commerce, not just that they are famous.

The developing Iceman dispute is therefore not simply a question of who is most closely associated with the nickname. It is a layered priority contest shaped by different filing bases, different categories of goods and services, and the possibility that an earlier third-party filer may control the field.

As so often in trademark law, the strongest claim may belong not to the most famous user, but to the party best able to prove use, priority and registrability.

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en Law360 el 29 de abril de 2026 y se vuelve a publicar aquí con permiso.

[1] Solicitudes de marca de EE. UU. n.º 99/704,819 y 99/704,826 (ambas presentadas el 16 de marzo de 2026).

[2] Solicitudes de marca registrada en EE. UU. con los números de serie 99/715,702 y 99/715,714 (ambas presentadas el 20 de marzo de 2026).

[3] Solicitudes de marca de EE. UU. n.º 97/375,417 y 97/375,439 (ambas presentadas el 21 de abril de 2022).

[4]https://tmng-al.uspto.gov/resting2/api/casedoc/cms/case/99715702/tmdocument/20260320213641589885SPE0003.pdf.

[5] Véase, por ejemplo, la solicitud de marca comercial de EE. UU. n.º de serie 85/535,650 (presentada el 7 de febrero de 2012); n.º de serie 85/537,764 (presentada el 9 de febrero de 2012) (solicitante, que alega un primer uso el 17 de julio de 2010).

[6] Registro de marca de EE. UU. n.º4.908.965(presentado el 13 de febrero de 2012).

[7]https://newsfeed.time.com/2012/02/16/people-are-already-scrambling-to-trademark-linsanity/

[8] Solicitud de marca registrada de EE. UU. n.º de serie 97/375.417 (presentada el 21 de abril de 2022).

[9] Solicitud de marca registrada de EE. UU. n.º de serie 97/375.439 (presentada el 21 de abril de 2022).