By: Hannah Carroll
The Chicago Bears made history during the 2025-2026 season as the team to win the most games while trailing in the final two minutes since 1970. During the second rivalry game against the Green Bay Packers, Williams earned his nickname, the “Iceman.” While most players take time off following the conclusion of the season, Williams has been busy filing trademark applications for the nickname. However, Williams is not the only professional athlete to be coined the “Iceman.” With three different athletes all vying for the same trademark rights, how does the United States Patent and Trademark Office (”USPTO”) decide who wins? Through this article, I will analyze how the USPTO evaluates trademark applications and which of the three athletes deserves the rights to the icy nickname.
On March 16, 2026, Williams filed four trademark applications with the USPTO.[1] These applications include the actual nickname, a new logo, and two silhouettes of Williams mid-throw from one of the pivotal playoff games.[2] Additionally, the trademark will be used on goods and services such as eyewear, downloadable posters and digital trading cards, athletic bags, drink wear, clothing, and athletic sporting goods and equipment.[3] While Bears fans around Chicago were excited about the possibility of “Iceman” branded merchandise, basketball Hall of Famer George Gervin had other thoughts.[4] On March 20, 2026, Gervin filed two trademark applications for the same nickname, letting Williams know the “name is taken . . . we’ve already got one ‘Iceman.’”[5] The trademark battle between the two gets more complicated when factoring in UFC legend Chuck Liddell’s similar “Iceman” trademark that was filed and approved in 2023.[6]
A trademark can be any word, name, symbol, design, or combination of these that is used in commerce to identify and distinguish goods from one another .[7] The Lanham Act , the statute that governs the nationally recognized process for trademark applications, sets out two requirements.[8] The first requirement that must be fulfilled when applying to register a mark is that the mark be used in commerce or be registered with an intent for use in commerce.[9] The Act states that the exclusive rights to a trademark are awarded to the first person to use the mark in commerce.[10] The second requirement is that the mark must be distinctive, meaning the mark identifies and distinguishes the source of the relevant goods or services.[11] In Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc.,[12] the Second Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals set forth five categories of distinctiveness: arbitrary, fanciful, suggestive, descriptive, and generic.[13] If a mark is generic, it cannot be awarded trademark protection.[14] If a mark is merely descriptive, it must acquire distinctiveness within the market, meaning the primary significance in the minds of consuming public is the producer rather than the product.[15] Suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks are inherently distinctive and therefore are strongest when it comes to trademark protection.[16]
Evaluating the mark’s distinctiveness on the Abercrombie spectrum is the first step in evaluating the likelihood of confusion, which in this context means the likelihood that consumers will see “Iceman” goods and associate them with one person or source instead of another.[17] In Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp.,[18] the Second Circuit set forth seven factors that courts can analyze to determine likelihood of confusion: (1) the strength of the mark, (2) the degree of similarity between the two marks, (3) the proximity of the products, (4) the likelihood that the prior owner will bridge the gap, (5) actual confusion, (6) defendant’s good faith in adopting its mark, and (7) the sophistication of the consumers.[19] Additionally, in order to maintain the exclusive rights to a mark over time, the owner must show proof of active and continuous use in commerce.[20]
Following the submittal of a trademark application, the USPTO conducts a search of their database to determine if the applied-for trademark conflicts with an established or pending trademark registration.[21] Additionally, in order to obtain the rights to a trademark the applicant will need to submit proof to the USPTO that they have continuously used the mark in commerce.[22] Herein lies the issue at hand: the President and CEO of Gervin’s company, Gervin Global Management, told sources he believed the “Iceman” nickname was already trademarked and believes it was used by Gervin in commerce on athletic apparel in 1979.[23] In 2022, Chuck Liddell filed for and got a trademark for “Chuck The Iceman Liddell,” which is still active and covers use of the mark on beer, alcohol, and clothing.[24] Presently, Caleb Williams has now also filed for an “Iceman” trademark with the intent to use it in commerce on clothing, sporting goods, accessories, and digital content.[25]
The “Iceman” mark is likely to be categorized as arbitrary on the Abercrombie spectrum because it is a common word used in an unfamiliar way, making it inherently distinctive.[26] Due to this categorization, none of the athletes fighting for the rights will have to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace in order to gain trademark protection.[27] Therefore, it’s who used the mark first in commerce and the likelihood of confusion that may arise if others gain rights to the same mark will be central to the inquiry.[28] Liddell was the first to use the mark in commerce, giving him a strong foundation for retaining his existing rights if he can demonstrate continuous use since the initial filing.[29] There is a large degree of similarity between the marks, as they all use the same nickname, the products being used are in close proximity, and the sophistication of the consumers all being professional sports fans.[30] The last piece of the trademark puzzle is the proof of active and continuous use in commerce element.[31] Currently, only Liddell has evidence of current and continuous use in commerce with an approved extension as of February 9, 2026, and Gervin’s use of the nickname, he admits in his application, is limited to a few videos on his website with no active use for any clothing or goods.[32]
Notwithstanding my own bias, even if Caleb Williams can better distinguish his mark from Gervin’s and Liddell’s, due to the mark being used on similar products and to a similar group of consumers, it is likely the USPTO will reject William’s and Gervin’s applications. The USPTO will likely reject the applications even if Williams and Gervin can make their marks more distinct because the consumer base of professional sports fans are similar, and they are applying to use the mark on similar goods such as clothing and sporting goods. There’s a chance Caleb Williams doesn’t win this legal battle and the trademark melts in front of him, but Williams will always be Chicago’s Iceman.
Student Biography: Hannah Carroll is a rising 2L at Suffolk University Law School and a member of the Suffolk Sports and Entertainment Law Association (SELA). Her interests include player representation, contract negotiation, and compliance. In her free time, she works with the Boston College Football Team as a Student Video Manager! Additionally, she loves watching professional sports and rooting for the Chicago Bears.
Contact Information: Hannah.Carroll@su.suffolk.edu
Disclaimer: The Suffolk Law Sports & Entertainment Law Association Blog is a student-run publication intended to encourage discussion, analysis, and enjoyment of issues related to sports and entertainment law. The content published on the Blog is for informational and educational purposes only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Suffolk University Law School, the Sports & Entertainment Law Association, or any affiliated faculty, staff, or students. Nothing on this Blog should be construed as creating an attorney–client relationship.
[1] See Josh Gerben, Caleb Williams Moves to Trademark ‘Iceman’ Nickname, Iconic Play Silhouette, Gerben IP https://www.gerbenlaw.com/blog/caleb-williams-moves-to-trademark-iceman-nickname-iconic-play-silhouette/ (Mar. 18, 2026),.
[2] Id.
[3] See United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Search, USPTO, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/99704819 (last visited May 27, 2026).
[4] See Gerben, supra note 1.
[5] See Darren Heitner, Caleb Williams “Iceman” Trademark Dispute: What it Means for Athlete IP Rights, Heitner Legal https://heitnerlegal.com/2026/03/29/caleb-williams-iceman-trademark-dispute-what-it-means-for-athlete-ip-rights/ (last visited Mar. 29, 2026).
[6] See Gerben, supra note 1.
[7] See United States Patent and Trademark Office, Glossary, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/glossary#sec-T (last visited Apr. 16, 2026).
[8] See 15 United States Code Service §1051.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] See Legal Information Institute: Distinctive Trademark, Cornell L. Sch., https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/distinctive_trademark (last visited Apr. 18, 2026).
[12] 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976).
[13] See id. at 9.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] 287 F.2d 492, 495 (2d Cir. 1961).
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] See United States Patent and Trademark Office, Examination of your application, USPTO, https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/examination-application (last visited Apr. 18, 2026).
[22] See Gerben, supra note 1.
[23] See Patrick Finley, George Gervin on Bears’ Caleb Williams: ‘Iceman’ nickname already taken, Chicago Sun Times https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears/2026/03/26/bears-caleb-williams-george-gervin-iceman-trademark-nickname-already-taken-nfl-quarterback-aba-nba-basketball-san-antonio-spurs (last visited Mar. 26, 2026).
[24] See United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Search, USPTO, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/97375417 (last visited Apr. 22, 2026).
[25] Id.
[26] See Laverne Berry, The Abercrombie Formulation: Generic, Descriptive, Suggestive, Arbitrary and Fanciful Marks, Berry Ent. L., https://berryentertainmentlaw.com/the-abercrombie-formulation-generic-descriptive-suggestive-arbitrary-and-fanciful-marks/ (May 2, 2011).
[27] 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976).
[28] See United States Patent and Trademark Office, supra note 24
[29] See Norm Rich & Alexander Liederman, Sizing Up The 3-Way Battle For ‘Iceman’ IP Rights, Foley & Lardner LLP https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2026/04/sizing-up-the-3-way-battle-for-iceman-ip-rights/ (last visited Apr. 30, 2026).
[30] See Polaroid Corp., 287 F.2d at 495.
[31] See United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Search, USPTO, https://tmsearch.uspto.gov/search/search-results/97375417 (last visited Apr. 22, 2026).
[32] See Finley, supra note 20.
Leave a Reply