News
July 14, 2025

Soca Warriors Trade Mark Dispute - Attack or Defend?

The nickname for the Men’s National Football Team, ‘Soca Warriors’, has officially been dropped by the Trinidad and Tobago Football Association. Following a years-long negotiation with Selywyn Melville, the alleged originator of the nickname, the TTFA has finally conceded defeat and will move on to using a new nickname, which will be decided by a public consultation.

At the heart of the dispute is the registered trade mark that Melville holds over the phrase ‘SOCA WARRIORS’, TM 37173. The trade mark is registered for a range of goods and services, most importantly, t-shirts, polo shirts, various types of bags and drinking glasses. In other words, the trade mark applies to some of the typical merchandising items one would expect to purchase in support of a sports team. That being said, the registration includes a multitude of items that are largely irrelevant to the National Football Team and moreover, to date there is no evidence of the mark being used in the course of trade in relation to these items.

In addition, it must be said that the timeline of key aspects of the years-long dispute leaves much to be discussed. It was reported in the Express Newspaper that Melville began the ‘legal battle’ in 2005, which is interesting because the trade mark was not filed until 25 April 2006 and it was not officially registered until 7 July 2022. The trade mark was registered by the Intellectual Property Office of Trinidad and Tobago subject to a court order issued by the High Court (Claim No CV2019-02484) [stay tuned for more on this as specifics of the court order are inherently problematic].

It is unclear what legal ground Melville was relying on in 2005. It was then reported that in March 2020 the ‘issue was settled’ and money earned from using ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ was shared with Melville. The final and most recent development appears to be the TTFA’s unsuccessful attempt to purchase the trade mark from Melville for $1 million TTD. Instead, Melville is reported to have only been willing to grant a licence to the TTFA.

Limits Of Trade Marks

From the reports concerning this story it is necessary to clarify the limitations on registered trade marks. There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what rights a registered trade mark grants to the owner.

1.    Trade marks only grant exclusivity over the goods and services for which the mark is registered. Due to the nature of Melville’s registration there is actually quite a lot of room for the TTFA to continue using the name in relation to the Men’s National Team and for events concerning the team because the mark was not registered in relation to sporting activities or other relevant event services. Instead, Melville’s mark only covers scuba diving in that particular class of services, which is a far cry from the activities of the team. The TTFA would only be liable for infringement in certain circumstances known as ‘double identicality’ and ‘confusing use’.

a.    Double Identicality

If the TTFA uses the mark on goods or services that Melville has registered for, they will infringe the trade mark.

b.    Confusing Use

If the TTFA uses the mark on goods or services that are similar to those that Melville has registered for, they will infringe if there is a likelihood that the public will be confused regarding the source of these goods or services.

Interestingly, there is also an argument to be made that ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ constitutes a well-known mark in Trinidad and Tobago. These marks have special protection whereby the mark owner can prevent use on goods or services not registered for if the public would be confused into thinking there is a connection with the mark owner. Given the status of the Men’s National Team, it should not be difficult to differentiate the sources of goods and services on offer. This argument can also be questioned since the public is unlikely to think of ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ as well known in connection to Melville, thus, he may not be able to avail of this protection anyway.

2.    Trade marks do not prevent descriptive use. Rather, trade marks prevent use on goods, adverting, offering of services etc. As such, it is arguable that the TTFA could continue to refer to the Men’s National Team as the ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ because the use of the name in this context would be purely descriptive and not an indicator of the origin of goods or services. In other words, the trade mark owner cannot stop third parties from using the trade mark outside the course of trade for non-commercial purposes. However, the TTFA would not be able to print t-shirts with the mark ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ on it without permission as this would infringe Melville’s mark.

3.    Most importantly it must be said that Melville cannot control fans referring to the Men’s National Team as the ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ nor can he have any control over popular references to ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ as in Maximus Dans’ football anthem ‘Fighter’.

4.    The timeline as to when either party started using the mark in the course of trade is also open to scrutiny. A continuous user of a mark will not be prohibited from use if their use predates that of the registered owner or if there has been a 5-year period of acquiescence.  

 

What Could The TTFA Do?

1.    Wait 5 years and make a claim for non-use – Trade marks must be used within 5 years of being registered, otherwise they are open to revocation.

2.    Bring a claim for revocation – It is arguable that the continued use of the mark by Melville may be misleading as the average consumer associates the mark with the Men’s National Team. As such, Melville’s use of the mark may be misleading where people see the mark and think of the Men's National Team.

3.    Bring a claim for invalidity – Trademarks must act as an indicator of origin. Despite Melville allegedly coining the term, if the average consumer does not associate the ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ mark with products or services provided by Melville then the mark fails to function and can be invalidated. This claim must be brought within 5 years of the date of registration, that is by 2027.

4.    Seek a declaration of non-infringement – If Melville claims infringement, the TTFA can seek a declaration of unjustifiable threat on the basis of continuous use in the course of trade before Melville’s use, which would allow both marks to operate concurrently. Although the TTFA would not be able to use the mark on goods or services that they have not previously offered.

5.    Continue to use the mark descriptively – So long as the use of ‘SOCA WARRIORS’ remains descriptive, Melville will have no grounds to bring a trade mark infringement claim.

6.    Move on and rebrand.

 

The lesson to be learned from this saga is that entities should ensure that they secure the trade mark rights for their key identifiers and brands before committing to use them extensively. The process of rebranding can be costly both financially and in terms of brand identity.

Contact Clover® today to secure your trade marks and other IP rights.