What the Abandoned "Board of Peace" Trademark Applications Tell Us About Trademark Ownership

Trademark applications are generally straightforward. An individual or organization that owns a mark and uses, or intends to use, it in commerce applies for federal registration. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) then examines the application under the Lanham Act to determine whether it meets the statutory requirements for registration.

The recently abandoned BOARD OF PEACE trademark applications, filed under Class 41 (which distinguishes educational materials) and Class 45 (reserved for personal and legal services), were anything but ordinary. The applications were signed and filed by the Director of the USPTO.

Rather than serving in its traditional role as examiner, the USPTO became the applicant itself, filing trademark applications for the name and logo of the Board of Peace, a-less-than-clearly defined, international initiative announced by President Donald Trump. The filings prompted legal questions about trademark ownership, use in commerce, and the scope of the USPTO's statutory authority, before ultimately being abandoned in early July 2026.

The USPTO filed two applications in late 2025 and early 2026 covering both the words BOARD OF PEACE and a corresponding logo. The applications explained that the agency was temporarily "stewarding" the marks while the organization was being established and that it was using the marks in connection with informational and anti-fraud related services. According to USPTO Director John Squires, the filings were prompted by concerns that a third party had registered a related domain name, creating the potential for public confusion.

Although government agencies may own trademarks for their own names, logos, and educational initiatives, the USPTO rarely acts as a trademark applicant. Its primary responsibility is to examine applications filed by others. That distinction made the Board of Peace filings particularly noteworthy and opened the procedure up to scrutiny.

The strongest criticism came from Representative Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, who sent an oversight letter to Director Squires questioning whether the applications complied with the Lanham Act and whether the USPTO had authority to pursue them.

While the letter addressed several issues, its legal concerns centered on a few core principles of trademark law.

The Lanham Act provides that an application for federal registration must be filed by the owner of the trademark. He stressed the ownership foundation of every trademark application because trademark rights exist to identify the source of goods or services offered by a particular entity. Raskin’s letter challenged the USPTO’s ownership, stating that “the USPTO has no discernible interest or involvement with this inscrutable and mysterious entity.” He cited 15 USC 1051(a), which provides that the “owner of a trademark used in commerce may request registration of its trademark on the principal register.”

Through letters and during March 2026 testimony by the Director, Raskin questioned whether the USPTO could lawfully characterize itself as the owner of the Board of Peace marks while simultaneously indicating that another organization would ultimately control them. If the agency was merely acting as a temporary custodian, he argued, that arrangement did not appear to fit within the ownership requirements established by the Lanham Act.

Raskin has also questioned whether the applications satisfied another fundamental trademark requirement: use in commerce, emphasizing that Federal trademark rights are tied to the commercial use of a mark in connection with identifiable goods or services. Simply announcing an organization or initiative does not automatically create trademark rights. Did the services identified in the applications represent actual commercial activity, or were they merely describing the future operation of the Board of Peace?

Although these questions were never answered through the examination process, they illustrate how ownership and commercial use often become threshold issues in determining whether a mark is eligible for registration.

The unorthodox applications also highlighted a dire institutional concern. Ordinarily, the USPTO serves as a neutral decision maker. Here, however, the agency had become both the applicant and the office responsible for examining its own filings. Questions were raised as to how the examination could remain impartial under those circumstances, and lawmakers challenged Director Squires to remove himself from any role in reviewing the applications in the interest of public confidence concerning the neutrality of the trademark registration process.

Unfortunately, these legitimate legal questions surrounding the applications were never resolved, leaving an air of ambiguity surrounding the filings. On July 3, 2026, the USPTO expressly abandoned both the word mark and logo applications before registration, ending the matter without a substantive determination on the legal issues that had been raised. The agency did not publicly explain its decision to abandon the applications.

Following the abandonment, Representative Raskin welcomed the decision, stating, "The USPTO's decision to abandon its disturbing trademark applications for the 'Board of Peace' is a welcome and necessary course correction."

He reiterated that the USPTO's responsibility is to examine trademark applications rather than apply for registrations on behalf of outside organizations, maintaining that the agency lacked authority to serve as an interim trademark holder.

Because the applications were abandoned before examination, the USPTO never had occasion to address these issues through an Office Action or precedential decision. Even so, the brief life of the Board of Peace applications serves as an unusual case study in the importance of ownership, use in commerce, and procedural integrity under the Lanham Act.

The attorneys at Renner Otto strive to be authorities in all matters concerning the ever-evolving landscape of Intellectual Property; however, the information provided on our website is not intended to be legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship.

Contact us for more information or for a complimentary consultation.‍ ‍‍ ‍ ‍ ‍