The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has formally withdrawn its efforts to register trademark rights over the name and logo of President Donald Trump’s “Board of Peace,” bringing an end to a move that had triggered political and legal criticism.
Official filings submitted by USPTO Director John Squires confirmed that the agency has voluntarily abandoned two trademark applications filed in December, covering both the Board of Peace name and its official emblem.
The applications had drawn sharp questions from lawmakers, particularly over why a federal agency sought to secure trademarks for an initiative associated with the President instead of the organization itself. Critics also challenged whether the USPTO had the legal authority to file such applications.
Representative Jamie Raskin, the senior Democratic member of the House Judiciary Committee, welcomed the withdrawal, arguing that the agency had lacked a valid legal basis to pursue trademark protection on behalf of the Board. He described the decision as a necessary reversal of an approach he had previously questioned before Congress.
The USPTO has not issued a public explanation for abandoning the applications and declined to comment on the development.
President Trump established the Board of Peace as part of his proposal aimed at ending the conflict in Gaza and overseeing reconstruction efforts in the territory. While the initiative has received recognition from the United Nations Security Council, support from the international community has remained mixed, with several major powers yet to join.
Under the Board’s governing framework, participating countries ordinarily receive membership for three-year terms. However, nations contributing $1 billion toward the Board’s activities are eligible for permanent membership, a provision that has attracted significant attention.
Earlier this year, Raskin wrote to USPTO Director Squires raising concerns about the Board’s financial structure. He alleged that the arrangement lacked sufficient oversight and questioned whether the trademark filings were being used to support an opaque funding mechanism linked to the initiative.
The agency rejected those allegations.
During testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in March, Squires defended the decision to file the trademark applications. He explained that the move was intended to protect the Board’s identity after a cyber-squatter quickly registered a related internet domain shortly after the initiative was announced.
According to Squires, the filings were designed to preserve the Board’s branding while the organization was still being established.
That explanation, however, did little to satisfy critics. During the same hearing, lawmakers questioned whether the federal trademark law permitted the USPTO to apply for trademarks on behalf of another entity. They pointed to provisions of the Lanham Act that generally prohibit third parties from filing trademark applications for someone else unless acting as their legal representative.
Following the agency’s decision to withdraw the applications, Raskin described the move as a welcome correction, bringing the unusual trademark effort to a close.
