As reported here at TMZ.com, Chuck Liddell has sued clothing company MMA Authentics for allegedly selling certain items bearing Liddell's trademarks without having first submitted the samples to Liddell for his approval as allegedly required under a license agreement between the two parties.
I have not seen the complaint (I searched the Los Angeles Superior Court website and nothing came up), but assuming the licensing agreement was still in place at the time of the alleged use of Liddell's mark without his approval (in other words assuming the license had not expired), Chuck's cognizable claim would be for breach of contract for failing to get the requisite approval as opposed to a claim for trademark violation.
In other words, the claim is not that MMA Authentics did not have a right to use the mark, but instead is that it did not properly comply with its obligations under the license agreement in using the mark.
He may also have asserted some other common law claims (and a trademark claim), but this is really going to come down to whether MMA Authentics is in breach of its contract (assuming the allegations are true) with Liddell and what Liddell's damages are.
I will continued to monitor.