IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Refusal to register LEGAL PEACEMAKERS for attorney services affirmed, (Feb 10, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The TTAB found the applicant’s mark LEGAL PEACEMAKERS and the registered mark PEACEMAKER are similar in in appearance, sound, meaning, connotation, and commercial impression.

In a non-precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed an examining attorney’s refusal to register the applicant’s standard-character mark LEGAL PEACEMAKERS under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act finding a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark PEACEMAKER. The TTAB determined that confusion was likely because the marks are similar, the services are related in some manner, and the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source when provided under similar marks (In re Bauza, No. 98593407 (T.T.A.B Jan. 30, 2026)).

Background. Magdalena Bauza (applicant) sought to register on the Principal Register of the standard-character mark LEGAL PEACEMAKERS for “Attorney services; Attorney services, namely, representation of clients in Family Law matters” in International Class 45. The examining attorney refused registration of the applicant’s mark under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act on the ground that it resembled registered mark PEACEMAKER for “conflict counseling, mediation, and arbitration services” in International Class 42, as to be likely, when used in connection with the services identified in the application, to cause confusion. When the examining attorney made the refusal final, the applicant appealed.

Likelihood of confusion. The TTAB, upon considering the DuPont factors for evaluating likelihood of confusion, agreed with the examining attorney that the applicant’s mark was likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception with the registered mark.

The TTAB addressed the first, second, and fourth factors, but found that the third and sixth factors were inapplicable on this record.

Under the first DuPont factor, the TTAB found that the applicant’s mark LEGAL PEACEMAKERS and the cited mark PEACEMAKER are quite similar in appearance, sound, and meaning. The TTAB also noted that the record showed that both attorneys and mediators (who may themselves be practicing or retired attorneys, or retired judges) work actively to resolve disputes through mediation. Thus, the marks are quite similar in connotation and commercial impression. Accordingly, the first DuPont factor strongly supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Under the second DuPont factor, while construing the “conflict counseling, mediation, and arbitration services” identified in the cited registration as broadly as reasonably possible, and resolving any ambiguities in their coverage in favor of the registrant, and similarly giving the “attorney services” identified in the application their “full scope,” the TTAB found that “conflict counseling,” “mediation,” and “arbitration” are all services that could be and are provided by providers of “attorney services.” The TTAB noted that the record showed that practicing attorneys participate as counsel, or as neutrals, in both mediation, and arbitration, the “process of resolving a dispute (as between labor and management) or a grievance outside of the court system by presenting it to an impartial third party or panel for a decision that may or may not be binding.” Therefore, the TTAB found that “attorney services” and “conflict counseling, mediation, and arbitration services” may all be provided by attorneys, and are inherently and actually “related in some manner,” and that “the circumstances surrounding their marketing are such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that they emanate from the same source” when provided under similar marks. Consequently, the second DuPont factor also supported a conclusion that confusion is likely.

Under the fourth DuPont factor, the TTAB recognized that purchasers of both “attorney services” and “conflict counseling, mediation, and arbitration services” are likely to exercise at least some degree of care given the nature of the services. However, even careful or sophisticated consumers are not immune from source confusion. As the marks are quite similar and the services are related, the TTAB found that the fourth DuPont factor was neutral in the analysis of the likelihood of confusion.

Balancing the DuPont factors, the TTAB determined that confusion is likely between the applicant’s mark and the cited registration. Thus, the refusal to register was affirmed.

The Case is No. 98593407.

Judge: Larkin, C.

Attorneys: Magdalena Bauz, pro se. Janice McMorrow for the USPTO.

Cases: Trademark USPTO