IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Credit union fails to demonstrate use of mark, loses it, (May 4, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The TTAB affirmed the USPTO’s finding that a mark should be cancelled under Section 16B because the registrant failed to use the mark as of the deadline date for its Statement of Use.

In a precedential decision, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) used Section 16B of the Trademark Act to uphold the final decision of the USPTO that Everwise Credit Union (Registrant) failed to demonstrate use in commerce of the standard character mark “EVERWISE CREDIT UNION” for various credit union, banking, and financial services. Under Section 16B, the USPTO may cancel a registration if evidence shows that the registered mark was not in use in commerce as of the deadline for filing a Statement of Use (SOU), among other reasons. Although Registrant argued that its specimen of use—a screenshot of its website showing the “EVERWISE CREDIT UNION” mark at the top of a webpage above a section that describes what it means to be a credit union, why Registrant’s credit union should be the customers’ choice, and that TCU (Teachers Credit Union) was an “Everwise Credit Union”—showed that the mark was in use in commerce, the Board disagreed. The Board instead concluded that the use of the wording on the specimen did not constitute bona fide use of the mark in commerce but rather showed an attempt to reserve a right in the mark until Registrant was actually using the mark in commerce in connection with its financial services (In re Everwise Credit Union, No. 7068783 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2026)).

Background. Registrant filed its SOU on April 14, 2023; the registration issued May 30, 2023. A third party petitioned for reexamination on June 20, 2023, and submitted evidence from a Wayback Machine search showing no use of the mark prior to the critical date and evidence that as of the SOU deadline, Registrant offered an app for its credit union services under the name “TCU Mobile Banking,” not “EVERWISE CREDIT UNION.” Although the Registrant attempted to rebut with a declaration from its Chief Marketing & Growth Officer (CMGO) asserting the mark was in use during the relevant period, the USTPO examiner issued a final office action finding that Registrant had failed to rebut the prima facie case of nonuse. Registrant then appealed.

Registrant’s arguments. Registrant argued that the “direct associations” between the “EVERWISE CREDIT UNION” mark and the advertisement of services on its webpage specimen was accepted during examination and should, therefore, be accepted during the appeal. Registrant also argued that the presence of “credit union” in the mark was sufficient to create an association in the minds of consumers between the mark and Registrant’s financial services. Registrant also maintained that their CMGO’s declaration should be given more weight because it corroborated that the mark was used in the advertising and rendering of the registered financial services with links for customers to obtain the services.

Examiner’s argument. The Examiner argued that the Registrant’s evidence demonstrated the use of the marks “TCU” and “TEACHERS CREDIT UNION” in connection with the subject services. The Examiner also contended that the only document showing the use of the “EVERWISE CREDIT UNION” mark on or before the SOU deadline was the specimen of use submitted by the Registrant, which prominently displays “TCU Teachers Credit Union” at the top of with page with other instances of large, prominent-font examples of “TCU” or “Teachers Credit Union” throughout. In the three instances where the wording “Everwise Credit Union” appears on the specimen, the wording was not prominently shown, argued the Examiner. Additionally, neither the CMGO declaration nor the other submitted exhibits showed the mark used in commerce as of the SOU deadline, per the Examiner. Furthermore, “TCU” or “TEACHERS CREDIT UNION” appear prominently and throughout the website and other materials. These materials also showed that the rebranding of Teachers Credit Union to Everwise Credit Union would happen as of June 26, 2023, which is months after the SOU was filed and a month after the registration was issued.

The Board’s decision. The Board was not swayed by Registrant’s argument that the specimen submitted was adequate because the Examining Attorney who examined its service mark application found the specimen acceptable, as the Board is not bound by such decisions. The Board then noted that the wording “Everwise Credit Union” appears a total of three times in the specimen and that two of these instances are “buried” in the text of the webpage in the same font and size of the rest of the wording in the corresponding paragraph. Therefore, the Board found that consumers would not view these instances as a source indicator for the registered services. The Board then found that the final instance of use—part of a tagline at the top of the specimen page reading “Why TCU? Because we are an EVERWISE CREDIT UNION™” was merely “use made in an attempt to reserve a right in the mark until Registrant was actually using the mark in commerce in connection with its financial services.”

As additional support, the Board also noted that Registrant did not file a change of name from Teachers Credit Union to Everwise Credit Union with the USPTO until July 19, 2023, and that the change of name was not executed until June 26, 2023, which was two months after the SOU deadline. The Board also expected Registrant to be able to demonstrate use of the mark in ways common to the industry—i.e., signage on brick-and-mortar facilities, copies of checks provided to consumers, client communications, business cards, etc.—but Registrant was not able to produce any examples other than the specimen web page. Even the other exhibits attached to the CMGO’s declaration to demonstrate Registrant was offering services failed to show the use of the mark as a source indicator for the services. Instead, the “TCU” or “TEACHERS CREDIT UNION” marks appeared throughout.

The Board eventually concluded that although Registrant’s evidence did demonstrate bona fide use of the mark in connection with its registered financial services, that use did not occur by the SOU deadline. Therefore, the Board found that Registrant’s use of the mark on the submitted specimen “was not bona fide in nature but submitted for the purpose of reserving the mark for use at a future date,” which was “exactly the type of use the statute was designed to avoid.” The Board then canceled the mark’s registration under Section 16B(g).

The Case is Registration No. 7068783.

Attorneys: Joel E. Tragesser (Quarles & Brady LLP) for Everwise Credit Union. Brittany Lee-Richardson for the USPTO.

Companies: Everwise Credit Union

Cases: Trademark USPTO