“It is well settled that matter which serves as part of the aesthetic ornamentation of goods, such as T-shirts, sweatshirts and shirts, may nevertheless be registered as a trademark for such goods if it also serves a source-indicating function.” Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Chisena, No. 91240180, 2023 WL 2986321, at *19 (TTAB 2023) (citation omitted), aff'd Chisena v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n, 2026 WL 60319 (Fed. Cir. 2026); see also In re Pro-Line Corp., No. 74174721, 1993 WL 398575, at *1 (TTAB 1993); In re Dimitri's Inc., No. 565815, 1988 WL 252334 (TTAB 1988).

For example, ornamental matter on a T-shirt ... can convey to the purchasing public the “secondary source” of the T-shirt (rather than the manufacturing source). Thus, even where the T-shirt is distributed by a party other than that identified by the designation, sponsorship or authorization by the identified party is indicated.

Major League Baseball Players, 2023 WL 2986321, at *19; see also TMEP § 1202.03(c) (“To show that a proposed mark that is used on the goods in a decorative or ornamental manner also serves a source-indicating function, the applicant may submit evidence that the proposed mark would be recognized as a mark through its use with goods or services other than those being refused as ornamental”).

Although “[i]t may have once been the practice in the clothing industry to limit logos to small sizes in discrete areas rather than to have them ‘emblazoned' across a garment ... such is no longer the industry practice, or at least no longer the only one.” In re Lululemon Athletica Canada Inc., No. 77455710, 2013 WL 326567, at *4 (TTAB 2013) (rejecting a per se rule based on the size of a mark on clothing but instead considering size among other factors in assessing the commercial impression and registrability of marks of this nature); Pro-Line Corp., 1993 WL 398575, at *1 (“The ‘ornamentation' of a T-shirt can be of a special nature which inherently tells the purchasing public the source of the T-shirt, not the source of manufacture but the secondary source. Thus, the name ‘New York University' and an illustration of the Hall of Fame, albeit it will serve as ornamentation on a T-shirt will also advise the purchaser that the university is the secondary source of that shirt.”).

Recently, the use of FAMOUS FRIENDS by country music singer and songwriter Chris Young in connection with his song, album, tour, and fan club services, was  found to be sufficiently extensive to cause consumers to recognize FAMOUS FRIENDS “as an indicator of secondary source” for the clothing such as T-shirts emblazoned with the mark. In re Runnin’ Behind, Inc., Ser. No. 97603035 (TTAB Apr. 23, 2026).

The TTAB agreed that the evidence was convincing that FAMOUS FRIENDS tells the public the secondary source of the applied-for goods of “shirts, T-shirts”; and reversed the refusal that the mark is merely a decorative or ornamental feature of those goods.

Although the applied-for FAMOUS FRIENDS mark qualified for protection as a secondary source indicator, the TTAB also affirmed a Section 2(d) refusal that confusion is likely with the registered mark FAMOUS FRIEND for “entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings.” 

[B]ecause names of music producers and composers can be used as trademarks for merchandising products, the goods and services may be related for purposes of a likelihood of confusion analysis. As noted in a case involving a television show, “[i]t is common knowledge … that video games, t-shirts, beach towels, caps and other logo-imprinted products are used as promotional items for a diverse range of goods and services…” Turner Entertainment Co. v. Nelson, No. 94200, 1996 WL 335214, at *4 (TTAB 1996).

Based on third-party registrations covering both goods and services, the TTAB found that “music composers and producers do indeed offer shirts for sale under the same names and marks” such that “Applicant's shirts and t-shirts are related to Registrant's entertainment services by a musical artist and producer, namely, musical composition for others and production of musical sound recordings.” Thus, the FAMOUS FRIENDS mark was refused registration under Section 2(d) for likelihood of confusion with the registered FAMOUS FRIEND mark. 

Posted on the TTABlog was the comment: “[T]he 2(d) refusal was based on a Class 41 registration. To overcome the ornamental refusal Applicant argued the mark on the goods served a source-indicating function based on his own entertainment services. That worked, but may have put the nail in the coffin on the 2(d) issue.”