The Board refused to register FORT WORTH BRAIN & SPINE INSTITUTE after finding no applicant use
The Board refused to register FORT WORTH BRAIN & SPINE INSTITUTE after finding that the applicant had never used the mark before filing.
Decision Desk · September 23, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential
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 The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.
The Board refused to register FORT WORTH BRAIN & SPINE INSTITUTE after finding that the applicant had never used the mark before filing. It also found that the doctors’ partnership using the mark had not agreed to do so under the applicant’s claimed permission arrangement. Opinion, p. 55.
| Mark and services | Applicant’s account | Board’s result |
|---|---|---|
| FORT WORTH BRAIN & SPINE INSTITUTE for medical services | The doctors’ partnership used it with the applicant’s permission | Registration refused; the claimed agreement was not proved |
Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91268880, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.
Fort Worth Brain and Spine Institute, PA filed an application, a request to register a mark, in 2020 for medical care, consultations, counseling and surgery. Fort Worth Brain & Spine Institute, L.L.P. brought an opposition, a challenge to registration, against that application. Opinion, p. 2.
The applicant acknowledged that only the partnership had used the mark for the services listed in the application. The applicant said that use counted for it because the partnership had used the mark under an oral license, a spoken agreement granting permission to use a mark. The partnership argued that its governing documents contained no mention of the applicant or the claimed agreement. Opinion, pp. 3, 40.
The Board said the partnership’s use created a starting assumption that the partnership owned the mark. It found that the applicant appeared in none of the documents governing the partnership’s formation or operation. The Board credited later partners’ testimony that no one told them about the applicant or any permission arrangement when they joined. Opinion, pp. 35, 42, 51.
The Board also found no evidence that Dr. Ellis controlled the quality of the other doctors’ medical services. The Board said Dr. Ellis may have managed how the partnership used the mark by keeping its graphics files. Opinion, p. 54.
The Board’s decision concerned registration of this mark for the medical services in the application. The Board did not decide the partnership’s separate fraud claim because the partnership did not pursue it at trial. Opinion, pp. 3, 55.
This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.
Sources
Related Articles
Board dismisses Inmode challenge to Empower Aesthetics design application
October 22, 2026
Board cancels Storyteller Overland’s two clothing registrations for lack of use when it applied
October 20, 2026
Zhang keeps MEN WITH THE POT registration because both cases rested on the same facts
October 15, 2026