Ascent Classical Academies v. Ascent Classical Academy Charter Schools

── Ascent Classical Academies v. Ascent Classical Academy Charter Schools ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General Appellate Case: 25-1132 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT May 7, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court ASCENT CLASSICAL ACADEMIES, Plaintiff Counterclaim Defendant - Appellant, v. No. 25-1132 (D.C. No. 1:24-CV-00653-GPG-STV) LANDS’ END, INC., a/k/a Lands End (D. Colo.) Direct Merchants, Inc., Defendant - Appellee, and ASCENT CLASSICAL ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOLS, INC., Defendant Counterclaimant - Appellee. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges, and SHELBY, District Judge. ** _________________________________ Ascent Classical Academies (Ascent) brought trademark infringement claims against Ascent Classical Academy Charter Schools, Inc. (ACACS) after the parties * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** The Honorable Robert J. Shelby, U.S. District Judge, District of Utah, sitting by designation.  Appellate Case: 25-1132 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 2 terminated their business relationship. 1 The viability of Ascent’s trademark infringement claims turns on the meaning of a contract between the parties. A plaintiff bringing an infringement claim must have a protectable legal interest in the relevant trademark. See 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc., 722 F.3d 1229, 1238 (10th Cir. 2013) (trademark infringement); see also Utah Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. & Rsch., 527 F.3d 1045, 1057 (10th Cir. 2008) (cybersquatting); Procter & Gamble, Co. v. Haugen, 317 F.3d 1121, 1128 (10th Cir. 2003) (contributory trademark infringement). Interpreting the parties’ contract to unambiguously permit the allegedly infringing behavior, the district court concluded Ascent lacks a protectable interest in its trademarks asserted against ACACS. We conclude the relevant contract provision is ambiguous. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. Background Ascent is a nonprofit corporation that manages charter schools. Ascent has four trademarks, including “Ascent Classical,” “Ascent Classical Academies,” and associated logos (collectively, Ascent Marks). ACACS is a charter school network that operates four charter schools in Colorado: Ascent Classical Academy of Northern Colorado, Ascent Classical 1 Ascent also brought a contributory trademark infringement claim against Lands’ End, Inc., who supplied gear to ACACS. Lands’ End is largely irrelevant to the issues on appeal. 2  Appellate Case: 25-1132 Document: 43-1 Date Filed: 05/07/2026 Page: 3 Academy of Grand Junction, Ascent Classical Academy of 27J, and Ascent Classical Academy of Douglas Coun