Whose “Baby” Is the Logo? TTAB Says It Could Belong to Your Employer

When a lawyer arrives at a firm with a brand idea, finalizes the logo using firm funds, and then uses it to promote her practice, who owns the resulting trademark? In Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace, P.C. v. Emily Grace Thomas, Opposition No. 91272167 (TTAB Sept. 10, 2026), a precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found the employer to be the true owner. The TTAB held that a departing associate did not, as an individual, own the Birth Justice logo she helped develop, because both its creation and its first use fell within the scope of her employment. The opinion provides helpful guidance for how the TTAB resolves employer-employee ownership fights in the absence of a written agreement.

Emily Grace Thomas is a birth-injury medical malpractice attorney who sketched a concept for a “Birth Justice” brand logo featuring Lady Justice holding a baby and bought the domain name birthjustice.com in January 2018 while on a “holiday break” at a prior firm.

During this time, she never used that preliminary logo in connection with any legal services she offered. In June 2018, she joined the Olsman firm as an associate attorney, without an employment agreement and without any agreement addressing ownership of trademarks. During the hiring process, Thomas informed principals at the firm of the development of her personal brand for her birth-injury practice.

While Thomas was employed by Olsman, the firm paid for her travel expenses and professional memberships and advanced or paid all costs for the birth‑injury matters on which she worked. During the period of her employment, she never practiced independently, and she was covered by the firm’s professional-liability insurance.

Before Thomas officially joined the firm, Olsman engaged a web developer to add a birth-injury page to its website, and retained and paid its longstanding graphic designer to create the “Birth Justice” logo at issue in this dispute. The designer’s quote specified that the logo would “utiliz[e] fonts and colors within the existing Olsman brand” and would be delivered for the firm’s “unlimited use.”

Thomas provided extensive creative input during the logo development process, and several firm principals encouraged her to work directly with the designer. For example, one principal asked Thomas “to make sure [the designer] is on the right track with your logo,” and another told her that the logo “is your baby (pun intended).” The logo went through several revisions, all with significant input from Thomas.

However, the firm paid every invoice.

The parties agreed that the logo was first used in commerce on Thomas’s business cards, which she first distributed at an American Association for Justice conference in October 2018. Because the firm’s standard printing vendor would not have been able to complete the cards in time for the conference, Thomas paid the initial expenses to have them printed more quickly. The cards identified her as an Olsman attorney with the firm’s address, email, phone number, and website. Thomas was the only attorney at the firm who specialized in birth-injury matters, and her business card was the only one at the firm featuring the finalized logo. She also used the logo on presentation slide decks, her personal Facebook page, a birth‑injury Facebook page she created, her LinkedIn page, printed cards, and various promotional items that she ordered and paid for (e.g., mugs, a banner, and apparel).

In December 2020, while she was still employed by the Olsman firm, Thomas filed an application with the USPTO to register the logo in her own name. She then left the firm in September 2021. On October 6, 2021, Olsman filed its own application to register the logo in the firm’s name and simultaneously opposed Thomas’s application on grounds of non-ownership, fraud, and likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB resolved the case in Olsman’s favor entirely on non-ownership grounds and declined to comment on the other issues raised in the opposition.

In its opinion, the TTAB first discussed Thomas’s pre-employment activities and held that merely designing a symbol in itself does not create trademark rights. It then found that the parties had no oral agreement on ownership, declining to read casual references to “your logo,” “your baby,” and “my logo” as an acknowledgement of Thomas’s rights to the logo. The Board explained that these possessive phrases had to be read in context—because Thomas was the firm’s only birth-injury attorney and the logo was meant to promote that practice within the firm, the “your logo” and “your baby” references were consistent with her leading a firm practice-area initiative rather than owning the mark herself. This evidence was given even more weight in light of the Board’s observation that it “would not make financial sense” for the firm to let an employee own a logo that the firm’s own designer created and the firm fully funded.

The heart of the opinion is the Board’s scope-of-employment analysis. The TTAB held that promoting a law firm’s practice falls squarely within the scope of an attorney’s employment, and Olsman controlled the logo design project, even with Thomas’s significant input, which the Board described as “natural and appropriate.” Looking then at who first used the mark in commerce, the TTAB stressed that trademark rights arise from use, and that the logo’s first use on firm-branded business cards promoting the firm’s birth-injury practice was a use that pointed to the firm as the source of the services, not Thomas in her individual capacity. The Board further held that because the logo was created and used in the scope of the employee’s employment, there was a rebuttable presumption that use of the mark inured to the employer’s benefit. While Thomas did take several steps beyond what was expected—paying to have her own business cards printed, personally registering for and maintaining the birthjustice,com domain, and promoting the practice on her personal Facebook page—the Board found that those efforts were outweighed because the services she promoted were advertised as the services of an Olsman associate. The Board concluded that Thomas had not rebutted the presumption and did not own the Birth Justice Logo in her individual capacity as of the filing date. Her application was therefore void, and the Board sustained the opposition on the grounds of non-ownership, declining to reach the remaining claims.

Olsman is a cautionary tale for parties on both sides of the employment relationship. For employers, the firm prevailed largely because it controlled and funded the creative logo development process and the mark’s first use identified the firm. However, it could have avoided years of litigation with a clear written agreement allocating ownership of any intellectual property developed during the employment relationship. For employees who bring a brand concept with them to a new job, the decision underscores the fact that conception, sketches, and domain registration create no trademark rights. Trademark rights arise only from use, and use undertaken as an employee presumptively belongs to the employer. An employee who intends to retain personal ownership of a mark developed on the job should document that understanding in an express written agreement at the outset; informal “your baby” emails will not be sufficient.

The case is Olsman, MacKenzie, Peacock & Wallace, P.C. v. Emily Grace Thomas, Opposition No. 91272167 (TTAB Sept. 10, 2026).