IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: ‘NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED’ fails to function as a source indicator, (Jan 23, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Registration of the proposed mark NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED was refused because it conveyed an informational message about the services with which it was used rather than indicating the source of those services.

A seller of business consultation and related services will not be allowed to register the proposed mark NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined that the proposed mark conveyed the information that the services were intended for a non-attorney audience instead of serving as a source indicator (In re Protect for Success, LLC, No. 98051678 (T.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2026)).

Protect for Success, LLC (“Protect”) sought registration on the Principal Register of the proposed standard character mark NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED for use with a large number of services generally related to business consultation and advice, webinars, seminars, and information in the field of law in International Classes 35, 41, and 45. The examining attorney refused registration as to all three classes on the ground that the proposed mark failed to function as a service mark but instead conveyed an informational message. Protect appealed.

Failure to function as a mark. Protect’s specimens consisted of its web pages using the mark and advertised that Protect offered “practical, bitesized, and easy to understand solutions to common legal issues” and courses with “practical tips on business and legal. [sic]” The Board found that the phrase NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED was used in this context in a way that was merely informational: it conveyed the level of education necessary to understand the information being provided, not the source of that information. The Board also found that the examining attorney had provided substantial evidence of third-party uses of that phrase being used in an informational, non-source-identifying, context, which corroborated the finding as to Protect’s use.

Protect submitted numerous registrations of marks in the structure of NO [BLANK] REQUIRED, such as NO JACKET REQUIRED on disposable beverage cups and NO PASSPORT REQUIRED on clothing, but the Board found that these marks were distinguishable. While there is some legal information for which a law degree might be required to understand, and therefore the factual information that the services in question did not require a law degree was relevant to the prospective consumers, the Board could not say the same about the relationships between jackets and beverage cups or passports and clothing. These and the other, similar, third-party registrations were therefore not relevant.

The Board affirmed the refusal to register.

The case is Serial No. 98051678.

Judge: Dunn, E.

Attorneys: Stephanie Pottick (Pottick Law PC) for Protect for Success, LLC. Amit Shoor for the USPTO.

Companies: Protect Success, LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO