The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently ruled in a trademark dispute involving two cheerleading organizations, U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. (USASF) and Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC. The court's decision reverses a lower court ruling that had dismissed USASF's claims of trademark infringement. This ruling affects the competitive cheerleading community, as it addresses the validity of trademarks associated with cheerleading events.
The case, titled U.S. All Star Federation, Inc. v. Open Cheer & Dance Championship Series, LLC, was filed under docket number 24-12653 on June 24, 2026. At the heart of the dispute are two trademarks: “THE CHEERLEADING WORLDS” and “WORLDS.” USASF claims these marks are essential to its identity and events, while Open Cheer operates a competing event called the “Allstar World Championship.” The case highlights the importance of trademark protection in the realm of competitive cheerleading.
USASF is a governing body for All Star cheerleading and dance, organizing events that feature teams from various private clubs and gyms. Since 2004, it has hosted an annual event at Disney World in Orlando, Florida, known as “Championship Week,” which includes “The Cheerleading Worlds.” USASF claims to have built significant goodwill in its trademarks over the years. Conversely, Open Cheer, owned by former USASF members, began promoting its own championship event in 2020, leading to alleged confusion among participants and spectators.
The legal battle began when USASF filed a lawsuit against Open Cheer in the Middle District of Florida on December 21, 2021. USASF sought to stop Open Cheer from using its marks and to recover damages, asserting that Open Cheer’s event infringed on its trademarks. Open Cheer responded by denying the claims and asserting that USASF’s trademarks were generic and lacked distinctiveness.
The district court ruled in favor of Open Cheer, granting summary judgment and concluding that USASF’s trademarks were generic and therefore not entitled to legal protection. The court found that the marks did not meet the distinctiveness requirement necessary for trademark protection. However, USASF appealed this decision, arguing that the lower court had erred in its assessment of the trademarks.
The Eleventh Circuit Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the district court's conclusion. The court stated, “a review of the considerable body of evidence presented by USASF on the usage of the two marks has convinced us that there are critical fact questions in dispute.” The judges emphasized that a reasonable jury could find that USASF’s marks are sufficiently distinctive to warrant trademark protection, thus reversing the lower court’s ruling.
While the district court had concluded that the marks were generic, the Eleventh Circuit found that there were genuine disputes over whether the marks were descriptive and had acquired secondary meaning. This distinction is crucial because a descriptive mark can gain protection if it has developed a secondary meaning in the minds of consumers.
The ruling by the Eleventh Circuit is significant for several reasons. It not only reverses the lower court's decision but also highlights the importance of distinctiveness in trademark law. The court's decision allows USASF to present its case again, potentially leading to a different outcome regarding the validity of its trademarks. This case could set a precedent for future trademark disputes in the cheerleading industry and beyond.
Going forward, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with the Eleventh Circuit's opinion. This means that USASF will have another opportunity to argue its case and present evidence regarding the distinctiveness of its trademarks. The outcome of this case could have lasting implications for trademark law in the competitive cheerleading community.
As for whether the decision can be appealed, it is unlikely that the Eleventh Circuit's ruling will be subject to further appeal unless there are significant legal questions that arise during the upcoming proceedings. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling, but the outcome of this case could influence similar trademark disputes in the future.