Earlier INVICTUS fitness use means Invictus Fitness LLC cannot register INVICTUS FITNESS

Decision Desk · August 24, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

The Board ruled for Invictus Fitness, Inc., so Invictus Fitness LLC cannot register INVICTUS FITNESS for its listed fitness activities. The Board found that the Inc. had used INVICTUS for in-person fitness training by January 1, 2009. Opinion, p. 29.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91287399, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

The LLC applied to register INVICTUS FITNESS on April 26, 2023, claiming it first used the mark on June 30, 2008. The Inc. brought an opposition, a challenge to an application to register a mark, claiming earlier use of INVICTUS and INVICTUS FITNESS and a risk that customers would confuse the companies’ offerings. The LLC admitted that the marks were identical or nearly identical and that the companies’ offerings overlapped. At trial, the LLC argued that the Inc. had not shown it used its marks first. Opinion, pp. 2–3.

The Board found customer confusion likely because the fitness offerings overlapped and the marks were identical or nearly so. It focused on which company had used its mark first. Opinion, pp. 6–7.

Nicole Renna, the LLC’s sole principal, said the LLC had used INVICTUS FITNESS since June 2008. Her 12-sentence written statement had no supporting exhibits. The Board found that the LLC had not established use of INVICTUS FITNESS for fitness activities in June 2008. It found use around March 28, 2010, when the LLC’s Facebook page launched and the earliest definite documented use appeared. Opinion, pp. 8–9, 18.

Christopher Martin, the Inc.’s president, testified that visitors participated in a free workout at its San Diego gym on January 1, 2009. The Inc.’s evidence also included an archived image of its website captured on January 18, 2009. The Board found Martin’s account reliable and supported by documents. Opinion, pp. 21, 28–29.

The LLC argued that the Inc.’s claimed first-use dates conflicted with dates in the Inc.’s own trademark filings. The Board required more demanding proof because the Inc. claimed it began using the marks earlier than the dates it gave in those filings. It found that the Inc.’s early use of INVICTUS alongside CROSSFIT still identified who provided the workouts. The Board concluded that the Inc. had proved INVICTUS use for in-person fitness training by January 1, 2009. Opinion, pp. 26–27, 29.

The ruling concerns whether the LLC can register INVICTUS FITNESS for the activities in its application; it does not decide whether either company may use a name. Opinion, p. 29.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.