Young Bucks

WWE sent a cease and desist letter to The Young Bucks (Nick and Matt Jackson) this week claiming the Bucks were using intellectual property owned by the company, in specific the “too sweet” hand gesture. The letter threatend damages in the range of $150,000 per item, any profits made off the items and legal fees.

According to a report by The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, any merchandise with references to the term “too sweet” that the Bucks were selling through their own website ( and has now been in removed in response. It should be noted that Bullet Club shirts being sold at Hot Topic stores nationwide did not have any reference or drawings in question by WWE, which have sold an estimated 100,000 t-shirts the last three months according to Nick Jackson.

WWE first registered ownership of the former “too sweet” hand gesture in 2015, something the Bucks responded to at the time. While it had a rich history in the early days of the nWo in WCW, WWE hadn’t used it for many years and it had a rebirth in New Japan Pro Wrestling with the formation of The Bullet Club during Finn Balor’s time with the promotion. The Young Bucks began marketing it in 2013. Getting into a legal battle with WWE right now over the trademarks was described in the report as being very costly.

WWE sent the letter after video was taken of The Bullet Club “invading” the RAW taping this past Monday in Ontario and put it online later that day as part of the “Being The Elite” YouTube series. The group promoted a last minute appearance at a Hot Topic store close to the arena and then gathered fans to walk over to do a remake of the DX invasion of WCW back in 1998. WWE sent the letter the following day claiming intellectual property violations over any references to “too sweet” including DVD releases, t-shirts, photos and other merchandise being sold. The video remains online that you can view below.


  1. i thought ronnie james dio “owned” that gesture, despite gene simmon’s feeble attempts to trademark it.

    p.s. i’m joking.

  2. WWE is beyond petty. Why don’t they focus on their product instead, cause their flagship shows absolutely suck!

  3. If they registered the trademark in 2015 and haven’t done anything until now I’m not sure this is WWE being petty. I’d say if they heard that over 100,000 of their other shirts were being sold and now they are doing ‘invasions’ at WWE events and posting the video partially drive traffic to a brand that WWE owns the trademark for and may execute on in the future, are they not simply acting on their business right. I know it’s ‘always’ viewed as Goliath bullying David when it’s the big guy serving papers to the little guy AND I’m certainly no defender of WWE practices (you can check out past posts on WV to see that) but it makes sense that they would try to act on this before the sales really build steam branding an image they own the rights to. That’s just my opinion but I think there are times when you should protect intellectual property you own and it sounds like WWE let them earn some revenue and continue using the Too Sweet property for years now…but their ‘invasion’ video brought it back to the front of mind.

  4. XD LOL. Isn’t it ironic? WWE has come full circle. Back when DX invaded WCW, DX & WWE were considered young, hip & cool and WCW were the boring old fuddy duddies. Now WWE & HHH are the boring old fuddy duddies while Bullet Club & ROH are the young, hip, cool ones.
    The only difference is that WWE is getting lower ratings now than WCW was at the time. And one could even say WWE’s current product sucks even worse as well. Go . yourselves wwe! You’re beyond pathetic now!

  5. Okay, so can’t New Japan sue wwe for basically copying the whole Bullet Club idea (with wwe using the term Club for AJ and Anderson/Gallows”) and wwe basically using the same Bullet Club T-Shirt design for Fin Balors “Balor Club” T-Shirts?

  6. As long as WWE doesn’t actually use the words Bullet Club, they can’t be sued for just saying “Club”. As for Finn Balor’s shirt design, I haven’t seen it but if it’s the exact same logo then yes, New Japan can sue over it. If it’s different enough, then no.

Comments are closed.