Emily Grace Thomas cannot register BIRTH JUSTICE logo because she did not own it when she applied

Precedent Alert · September 10, 2026 decision · Precedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board designated this opinion precedential, meaning it binds the Board in later cases.

Emily Grace Thomas sought to register the BIRTH JUSTICE logo for birth injury legal services. The Board upheld the Olsman firm's opposition, a proceeding challenging Thomas's application, or request to register a trademark, because it found that she did not own the logo when she applied. Opinion, pp. 2, 43.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91272167, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

What later cases must follow

The question was whether Thomas individually owned the logo for the listed services when she applied. Only the owner of a mark, a trademark such as a name or logo, may apply to register it based on its use; an application filed by someone who did not own it on the filing date has no effect. When an employee creates and uses a mark as part of the job, the Board assumes that use benefits the employer, though the employee can overcome that assumption. The Board clarified that the employee can overcome it with evidence making individual ownership more likely true than not. Opinion, pp. 28, 39.

Thomas began developing the logo concept in January 2018 while working at another law firm. She had not used her January sketches to provide services. Thomas joined the Olsman firm on June 4, 2018. The firm hired and paid a designer to create the logo. The parties agreed that the finished logo was first used on business cards at an October 2018 conference. Opinion, pp. 8–9, 12, 20.

The Olsman firm claimed Thomas did not own the logo when she applied. Thomas said she made clear during hiring discussions that she would own the logo. She cited emails from firm leaders referring to it as her logo. Opinion, pp. 2, 30–31.

Thomas also argued that she had given the firm spoken permission to use the logo. The Board did not consider that argument because Thomas first raised it in her final written filing and the firm had no fair notice of it while the parties presented evidence. Opinion, pp. 25, 27.

The Board found that Thomas's earlier concept, sketches and birthjustice.com domain registration did not establish her ownership of the finished logo on their own. The Board found no agreement between Thomas and the firm about ownership of the logo. It found that emails referring to her logo reflected her lead role in the firm's practice area and did not establish individual ownership. Opinion, pp. 30–32.

The Board found that Thomas developed and used the final logo as part of her job, while the firm hired and paid the designer. It found that the logo's first use on Thomas's Olsman business card benefited the firm because the card listed firm contact details and the firm's website and promoted its services. The Board also found that Thomas's later use on presentations, social media and promotional items before filing promoted the firm's legal services. Opinion, pp. 36, 38.

The Board acknowledged that Thomas personally paid for business cards and to maintain the birthjustice.com domain. It found those activities were outweighed by evidence that the logo was created and used as part of her work for the firm. The Board found that the cards and a later presentation connected the logo to Thomas as a firm lawyer and to the firm itself. Opinion, pp. 39–41.

The decision refused Thomas's registration based on her lack of ownership when she applied. The Board did not decide the firm's other claims. Opinion, p. 43.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.