From the Horseshoe to the End Zone: Ohio State’s TTAB Opposition Meets Big Ten Banter

When it comes to trademarks, The Ohio State University plays defense as aggressively as it does on Saturdays in the Horseshoe. This fall, instead of blitzing Michigan’s offense, the Buckeyes are tackling The Brown Jug, Inc. of Ann Arbor, which filed to register BUCKEYE TEARS for beer and liquor. OSU’s opposition (TTAB Opp. No. 91301291) is now pending, with an answer due October 6, 2025. Think of it as a rivalry game moved from the field to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) neutral turf in Alexandria.

First Down: The Likelihood of Confusion Playbook

Trademark law throws its first flag under Lanham Act § 2(d), which bars marks “likely to cause confusion” with existing registrations. The TTAB reviews this under the DuPont factors, looking at similarity of the marks, relatedness of the goods, channels of trade, and the all-important fame of the prior mark.

• Similarity of marks. OSU has registrations for BUCKEYES, and “BUCKEYE TEARS” doesn’t exactly run a trick play—it squarely references the same mascot. Connotation counts, and consumers may reasonably assume some “sponsorship” by Ohio State.
• Goods and channels. While OSU isn’t selling beer at the Shoe (yet), collegiate licensing covers everything from hoodies to tailgate chairs. Courts recognize that when brands extend across merchandise, fans might think even alcohol is licensed.
• Fame. Ohio State’s licensing program has racked up $145M+ in royalties and $2.2B in retail sales over the past decade. That’s a stat line any athletic department would envy, and and it bolsters OSU’s case that BUCKEYES is more than a mascot; it’s a commercial powerhouse.

Like a replay review, the TTAB will slow down the tape to see if the public would think “BUCKEYE TEARS” is a cheeky parody or a licensed extra point.

Second Down: Dilution by Blurring (and Tarnishment)

The dilution claim—Lanham Act § 43(c)—is OSU’s Hail Mary. To win here, OSU must prove BUCKEYES is famous to the general public of the U.S., not just to scarlet-and-gray diehards. If they cross that line to fame, then “BUCKEYE TEARS” could be tackled for blurring (weakening distinctiveness) or tarnishment (associating the school’s identity with alcohol).

The applicant will try a Michigan-style counterpunch: parody. But parody as a source identifier often fumbles. Courts have ruled that a joke that doubles as a trademark loses the safe harbor. It’s one thing to chant “We don’t give a damn for the whole state of Michigan,” it’s another to bottle it and slap it on a label.

Third Down: The False Suggestion Option Play

Under § 2(a), marks that falsely suggest a connection with an institution get sacked. If the TTAB believes “BUCKEYE TEARS” points unmistakably to Ohio State and implies affiliation, that’s another penalty. And unlike a questionable targeting call, this one sticks.

Fourth Down: What the TTAB Crowd Should Expect

• Procedural clock: Answer due October 2025, with discovery and trial stretching into 2027. Like overtime in a Michigan–Illinois slugfest, this could drag on.
• Evidence: Expect surveys, licensing history, and maybe even expert testimony on consumer perception. TTAB cases are often won on the margins—think of it as a field goal battle, not a 70-yard touchdown.
• Outcome prediction: Confusion alone may be a tough conversion—after all, most fans know Ann Arbor isn’t ordering kegs from Columbus. But OSU has a strong chance of sustaining the opposition on sponsorship/approval confusion and, if they prove nationwide fame, dilution. I’d bet the TTAB ultimately denies registration, leaving “BUCKEYE TEARS” as nothing more than a rivalry chant.

Rivalry Banter

• Filing this opposition is OSU’s version of a “goal line stand.”
• “BUCKEYE TEARS” might feel like a clever interception, but if OSU proves fame, the Board may blow the whistle on dilution.
• Michigan fans may relish every drop, but the TTAB doesn’t hand out “Paul Bunyan trophies” for parody.
• The Board’s ruling could be the off-field equivalent of Harbaugh’s headset toss—a decision that makes headlines and fuels tailgate banter for years.

In trademark law, as in football, the refs (here, the TTAB) don’t care who you root for. They call it by the rulebook: 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), § 1125(c), and TMEP § 1207 on confusion. But with the BUCKEYE brand’s fame stats, it’s hard to see “BUCKEYE TEARS” making it past the red zone.

And so, as we await the TTAB’s final whistle, one thing is certain: rivalry never rests, not even in trademark law.

Go Green.

Alexander R. Karana, an attorney with the law firm of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, is an accomplished Intellectual Property attorney. He is admitted to practice in Michigan and Illinois. As a registered patent attorney, he brings a deep technical and legal foundation to clients at the forefront of innovation, brand-building, and entertainment. His practice centers on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, and technology-driven business transactions. He regularly advises startups, creators, and established companies on protecting their inventions, scaling their brands, and navigating complex IP and contract disputes. From securing patents to enforcing trademarks, Alexander’s legal work is designed to drive business growth while minimizing risk. He also brings niche expertise in Entertainment and Sports Law, helping athletes, musicians, and influencers protect and monetize their creative assets.

Mr. Karana received a Juris Doctor degree (Concentration in Intellectual Property Law- Patent Track) from University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, where he graduated with distinction. His legal journey has been complemented by his background in Chemical Engineering from Michigan State University.

He may be reached in our Livonia office at (734) 261-2400 or akarana@cmda-law.com.