Nike just had its trademark application rejected for Bronny James’ “B9” logo, and the reason is something most business owners completely misunderstand. The United States Patent and Trademark Office refused the application because of a “likelihood of confusion” with an existing trademark owned by Back9 Golf Apparel, a Texas based company. Both marks were filed for clothing and apparel, which made the issue much more serious. According to the USPTO, the logos are similar enough that consumers could believe the products come from the same source. That is all it takes to get denied. Not an exact copy. Not bad intent. Just the potential for confusion.
This is where most people get trademark law wrong. They assume that if they are not copying a brand exactly, they are safe. They think changing a font, adding a design element, or tweaking a name is enough. It is not. Trademark law looks at the overall commercial impression of a brand. If two marks feel similar in the real world, especially when used on the same type of product, there is a high chance of rejection.
Even Nike ran into this problem. That should tell you how common this issue really is.
Bronny James’ situation is getting attention because of his name and platform, but the legal principle applies to everyone. Whether you are launching a clothing brand, building a personal brand, or starting an ecommerce business, the same rules apply. You do not get extra protection because you are new, and you do not get a pass because you were unaware of an existing trademark.
What made this case more straightforward for the USPTO is the category. Both Nike’s “B9” logo and Back9’s registered mark are tied to clothing and apparel. That overlap matters more than most people realize. When trademarks are used in the same industry, the bar for what counts as “confusingly similar” gets much lower. A name or logo that might survive in two unrelated industries can easily get rejected when both are selling similar products.
There is also a timing issue that works against Nike. Back9 began using its “B9” mark in 2020 and secured federal registration in 2022. In trademark law, priority matters. The first to use and register a mark generally has stronger rights. Once that registration is in place, it becomes a major obstacle for anyone trying to register something similar later.
This is not a rare situation. According to USPTO data, “likelihood of confusion” is one of the most common reasons trademark applications are refused. Thousands of applications face this issue every year. Many of those applicants have already invested in branding, logos, packaging, and marketing before discovering there is a problem. By that point, fixing it becomes expensive.
Here is what “likelihood of confusion” really means in plain English. If a customer sees two brands and reasonably thinks they are connected, affiliated, or come from the same company, there is a problem. That confusion does not have to be proven with actual mistakes. The possibility alone is enough.
For example, if you launch a brand called “FitNine” selling athletic apparel, and there is already a “Fit9” brand in the same space, changing the spelling will not save you. If the sound, look, and meaning are close enough, the USPTO can still reject your application. The same logic applies to logos. Stylized letters, fonts, and design tweaks do not override similarity in the core mark.
Nike now has a few options. The company can respond to the refusal and argue that the marks are different enough. It can try to narrow the scope of the application or adjust the design. It could also attempt to reach an agreement with the existing trademark owner. In some cases, these strategies work. In others, they do not, and the brand has to pivot.
For most businesses, the bigger lesson is what should happen before filing. A proper trademark clearance search is critical. This goes beyond a quick Google search or checking if a domain name is available. It involves reviewing federal registrations, pending applications, and even unregistered common law uses that could create risk.
Skipping that step is where most problems begin. Businesses fall in love with a name or logo, invest in it, and only later realize it is too close to something that already exists. At that point, they are forced to choose between fighting a legal battle or starting over.
The Bronny James situation is a high profile example, but the takeaway is simple. If a company like Nike can run into a trademark refusal over similarity, anyone can. Trademark law is not about creativity alone. It is about distinctiveness and separation in the marketplace.
Before you build a brand, make sure you can actually own it. That means choosing something unique, clearing it properly, and thinking beyond design into legal risk. Because in the end, the question is not whether you like your brand. It is whether you can protect it.
