Trademark ownership disputes often turn less on who first thought of a brand name and more on who used the mark as a trademark — and for whose business. A September 10, 2026 TTAB precedential decision, Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace, P.C. v. Emily Grace Thomas, Opposition No. 91272167, is a useful reminder for Iowa lawyers, startups, and professional-service brands: conceiving a logo and registering a domain before you join a firm does not automatically make you the trademark owner if the mark is developed and used in the scope of employment. This overview is general information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

What the Board decided

The Board sustained the law firm’s opposition to registration of a BIRTH JUSTICE composite logo for birth-injury legal services. Applicant Emily Grace Thomas had conceived the brand concept and registered birthjustice.com before joining the firm. She later sought registration in her individual capacity. The Board concluded she was not the owner of the mark for the identified services as of the application filing date.

Conception and a domain are not enough

Only the owner of a mark may file a use-based application under Trademark Act Section 1(a). The Board reiterated settled points that matter in practice:

• Merely designing or inventing a symbol does not create trademark rights.
• Registering a domain name, standing alone, does not confer trademark rights.
• An employee’s suggestion of a designation — even before or during employment — generally does not bestow proprietary trademark rights on the employee.

Thomas arrived with a concept, but the logo had not been finalized or used in commerce for services before employment. The final logo was developed with firm personnel and a design firm paid by the firm, then used to promote the firm’s birth-injury practice.

Scope of employment and goodwill

There was no written or oral ownership agreement. Relying on agency principles, the Board found Thomas acted within the scope of her employment when she helped develop and then use the logo. Promotional work for a law firm, the Board explained, is within an attorney’s employment — especially where the associate was hired for birth-injury expertise and the mark promoted that firm practice area.

Because creation and use occurred within the employment relationship, the Board applied a presumption that use was on behalf of the firm and that goodwill inured to the firm. Thomas failed to rebut that case. The Board also declined to consider an implied-license defense that was neither pleaded nor tried by consent.

Practical takeaways for Iowa brands and professional practices

• Write ownership down early. If a founder, associate, contractor, or designer brings a brand concept into a company or firm, put trademark (and related IP) ownership in writing before the mark is polished and used.
• Separate “idea” from “trademark use.” Trademark rights generally arise from use as a mark for goods or services — not from a sketch, pitch, or domain registration alone.
• Employment-scope use can shift goodwill. When a mark is developed and used to promote the employer’s services, ownership fights get harder for the individual applicant.
• Clear the applicant before you file. Filing in the wrong owner’s name can sink an application even if the brand itself is strong.

For related reading, see our trademarks overview, federal vs. Iowa filing resource, and the updated step-by-step trademark guide.

Talk with Iowa trademark counsel

Jason Sytsma advises Iowa businesses and professionals on trademark clearance, ownership, and USPTO practice. Learn more on the About Jason page and the firm bio.

Contact the office to request a consultation. Any engagement is subject to conflicts review, an engagement agreement, and applicable professional-responsibility rules. This article is attorney advertising and is intended for general educational purposes only; results vary, and past experience does not guarantee a particular outcome.