Trademark Board Awarded Law Firm Logo Ownership

The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled a law firm owns a logo designed by a former associate.

Updated on Sept. 25, 2026 in Human Resources

Live Poll

Should employees own the rights to intellectual property they create while employed?

The U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has awarded ownership of the Birth Justice logo to the law firm Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace. The decision concludes a legal dispute between the firm and a former associate who had attempted to trademark the design in her own name.

Why it matters

The ruling provides clarity on intellectual property rights for work created by employees during their tenure at a firm. It highlights the importance of clearly defining ownership of creative assets in the absence of explicit contractual clauses.

The firm paid for the design of the logo while it was being created by the associate on company time. The board determined this financial support and workplace environment established the firm's rightful ownership of the intellectual property.

The players

Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace

This is a law firm that was awarded ownership of the Birth Justice logo following a trademark dispute.

U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

This administrative body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office adjudicates trademark registration disputes.

The details

The associate initially sketched the logo, which features Lady Justice holding a baby, and registered the birthjustice.com domain in January 2018. Although she joined the firm later that year without a specific employment agreement regarding trademark rights, the board ruled the firm's funding of the design process was decisive.

In January 2018, the associate sketched logo ideas and registered the birthjustice.com domain.
The associate joined the law firm in June 2018.
On September 10, 2026, the board issued its final ruling awarding ownership to the firm.

Market Landscape

This dispute illustrates the ongoing tension between individual creators and corporate entities regarding intellectual property rights. The ruling reinforces the tendency for courts to protect firm-funded assets when formal employment contracts regarding creative ownership are absent.

This case serves as a warning for professionals to ensure that intellectual property rights are explicitly defined in employment agreements. Without written clarity, employees who create branded materials on company time risk losing ownership claims to their employers.

The takeaway

Employers should establish formal intellectual property protocols to avoid future litigation regarding company-affiliated designs. Professionals are advised to document ownership rights for creative work performed prior to or during their employment to prevent ownership disputes.