Trademarks are weird. Honestly, most people think they're just logos or fancy business names, but right now, they're becoming the primary weapon in a massive cultural tug-of-war. If you've been scrolling through your feed lately, you’ve likely seen snippets of trademarks in the news that feel more like a Hollywood script than a legal filing. From Matthew McConaughey trying to "alright, alright, alright" his way into AI protection to the "dupe wars" at Costco, the rules of who owns what are changing fast.
It isn't just about big companies bullying small ones anymore. It’s about identity. In early 2026, we're seeing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and federal courts grapple with questions that didn't even exist five years ago. Can you own a vibe? Can you trademark a feeling? Turns out, people are trying.
The McConaughey Maneuver and AI Protection
Just this week, on January 16, 2026, Matthew McConaughey made headlines for a move that sounds peak McConaughey. He’s pushing to trademark his iconic phrases and his very specific "vocal cadence." Why? Because deepfakes are getting too good. Dr. Alina Trapova from UCL Laws recently pointed out that celebrities are pivoting toward trademark law as a shield against AI misuse because traditional "right of publicity" laws are a bit of a mess across different states.
McConaughey isn't just being protective; he's being tactical. By turning a catchphrase into a registered trademark, he can use the Lanham Act to shut down AI-generated ads that sound exactly like him. It’s a clever workaround. Most people think you need a new "AI Law" to fix this, but the old-school trademark system is proving surprisingly flexible.
The Dupe Wars: Costco, Lululemon, and the Death of Originality
You've seen the TikToks. "Run, don't walk to Costco for this $20 Lululemon dupe!" Well, Lululemon finally had enough. Their lawsuit against Costco, which gained serious steam as we hit 2026, targets the Kirkland-branded apparel that looks suspiciously like the Define jackets and Scuba hoodies.
💡 You might also like: Why the Elon Musk Doge Treasury Block Injunction is Shaking Up Washington
This isn't just about a logo. It’s about trade dress. That’s the legal term for the "look and feel" of a product. Lululemon is arguing that the stitching, the silhouette, and even the way the fabric hangs are so iconic that Costco is basically stealing their "goodwill."
But here’s the kicker: Is it actually illegal to make something that looks similar?
- The Pro-Dupe Argument: Some courts argue that if a consumer knows they are buying a cheaper version (the "intentional purchase of a copycat"), there is no confusion. No confusion, no trademark infringement.
- The Brand Argument: Famous brands say the "dupe" weakens their exclusivity. If everyone at the gym is wearing a $20 version, the $118 original loses its "cool" factor.
We're also seeing this in the beauty world. Sol de Janeiro recently went after the Australian brand MCoBeauty for allegedly copying their bright packaging and "smells exactly like" marketing. It’s a mess. Honestly, the line between "inspired by" and "illegal copy" is thinner than a Lululemon legging.
When Everyday Words Fail to Function
One of the most fascinating trademarks in the news right now involves the Federal Circuit and the "F-word." You might remember In re Brunetti from a few years ago when the Supreme Court said the government couldn't ban "scandalous" marks. Well, the case is back in 2026 with a new twist.
📖 Related: Why Saying Sorry We Are Closed on Friday is Actually Good for Your Business
The USPTO tried a different tactic: they argued the F-word "fails to function" as a trademark because it’s a "widely-used commonplace term." Basically, they’re saying if everyone says it, nobody can own it. The Federal Circuit just sent this back, telling the USPTO they need a more "reasoned and consistent" standard.
Why does this matter to you? Because it affects anyone trying to trademark a "vibe" or a common phrase. If you want to start a clothing brand called "Slay" or "Mood," you're going to hit the same wall. The courts are basically saying: "If it's everywhere, it's nowhere in the eyes of the law."
The "All Rise" Dispute: Aaron Judge vs. The Fans
Even sports aren't safe. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently blocked a random guy, Michael P. Chisena, from registering "ALL RISE" and "HERE COMES THE JUDGE" for merch. Even though Aaron Judge (the Yankees star) didn't personally file for those marks first, the court ruled that the public already associates those phrases with him.
This is a huge win for athletes in the Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) era. It sets a precedent that you can't just "squat" on a player's nickname and hope to get rich.
👉 See also: Why A Force of One Still Matters in 2026: The Truth About Solo Success
Actionable Insights for 2026
If you're running a business or building a personal brand in this chaotic landscape, you can't just wing it. The "dupe" culture and AI evolution have made the old rules obsolete.
1. Audit your "Trade Dress" early. Don't just protect your logo. Look at your packaging color, your unique stitching, or your specific UI layout. In 2026, the "look and feel" is often more valuable than the name itself.
2. Watch the "Failure to Function" trap. If you’re building a brand around a trendy slang word, stop. The USPTO is cracking down on "ubiquitous" terms. You want a name that is "fanciful" or "arbitrary"—words that have nothing to do with the product, like Apple for computers or Kodak for film.
3. AI-Proof your identity. Follow the McConaughey model. If you have a specific way of speaking or a signature catchphrase in your content, consider trademarking it. It’s much easier to send a "Notice of Infringement" for a trademark than it is to sue for a "likeness violation" in most jurisdictions.
4. Document your "Priority." As we saw in the Aaron Judge case, being the first to the USPTO office doesn't always mean you win. Keep records of when you first used a phrase in public. Social media timestamps are your best friend here.
The world of trademarks in the news is no longer just for lawyers in suits. It’s for the creator, the gym-goer, and the entrepreneur. The way we define "ownership" is shifting from what we make to who we are. Stay sharp, because the next big trademark battle might be over a phrase you just posted on Threads.