Trademark Board Awarded Law Firm Logo Ownership
The ruling underscores the importance of clear IP ownership terms in employment agreements for all firms.
Updated on Sept. 25, 2026 in Human Resources
Live Poll
Should employees own the rights to intellectual property they create while employed?
The US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has awarded ownership of the Birth Justice logo to the Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace law firm. The decision concludes a dispute with a former associate who had filed for the trademark in her own name.
Why it matters
The board ruled in favor of the firm because the logo was created on company time, highlighting a critical risk for firms without explicit intellectual property clauses. This case underscores the necessity of defining ownership for work product created during employment.
The board issued its ruling on September 10, 2026, regarding a logo originally sketched in January 2018. This case centers on work performed during the associate's tenure at the firm, which she joined in June 2018.
The players
Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace
A law firm that successfully claimed legal ownership of a disputed logo created by an associate.
US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
An administrative body within the USPTO that adjudicates trademark disputes and ownership challenges.
The details
The associate claimed ownership after sketching logo ideas and registering the birthjustice.com domain prior to joining the firm. Despite the lack of a signed employment agreement addressing intellectual property, the firm successfully argued ownership based on the fact that they paid for the final logo design and the work was performed on company time.
Timeline
January 2018: The associate sketched logo ideas and registered the birthjustice.com domain.
June 2018: The associate joined Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace.
September 10, 2026: The US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled the firm owns the logo.
Market Landscape
This decision mirrors the legal complexities established by the Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid 'work made for hire' doctrine. It confirms that the absence of a written contract creates vulnerability for firms relying on informal expectations of intellectual property ownership.
Operators should review existing employment contracts to ensure they include comprehensive intellectual property assignment clauses for all work products. Firms should consult with legal counsel to verify that their onboarding documentation covers assets created on company time.
The takeaway
The ruling demonstrates that relying on company time as the sole basis for ownership is a risky alternative to robust contractual language. Review your standard employment agreement to ensure that all intellectual property developed during the term of employment is clearly assigned to the company.
Further reading
For more on managing employee agreements and intellectual property, visit the Human Resources section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Human Resources Director.
Live Poll
Should employees own the rights to intellectual property they create while employed?
