Overview of the US SPACE FORCE Trademark Dispute
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to deny registration of the trademark “US SPACE FORCE.” The case offers a useful look at how trademark law intersects with national identity and public perception.
How the Space Force Name Entered the Public Domain
The term “Space Force” entered the public spotlight in March 2018, when then-President Donald Trump announced plans for a new military branch focused on space operations. By December 2019, the United States Space Force was officially established as the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The Timing of the Trademark Application
Just days after Trump’s 2018 announcement, intellectual property attorney Thomas Foster filed an application to register the trademark “US SPACE FORCE” for a range of goods and services on behalf of his law firm. The timing was strategic. However, it ultimately proved insufficient to secure trademark rights.
Why the USPTO Rejected the US SPACE FORCE Trademark
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initially refused the application under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. That provision bars registration of marks that falsely suggest a connection with a person, institution, belief, or national symbol.
Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act and False Association
The USPTO concluded that “US SPACE FORCE” would lead consumers to believe the mark was associated with the United States government. As a result, the Office found the mark unregistrable.
The Appeal Process Before the TTAB and Federal Circuit
Foster appealed the refusal to the TTAB, which affirmed the USPTO’s decision. He then sought reconsideration, which was denied. The dispute ultimately reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
When Trademark Rights Are Evaluated Under Federal Law
Foster’s primary argument focused on timing. He asserted that the trademark should be evaluated based on the facts existing at the time the application was filed, not on later developments.
Filing Date vs. Examination Date in Trademark Review
The Federal Circuit rejected this position. The court held that the proper time to assess whether a mark falsely suggests a connection is during examination, not at filing.
By the time the USPTO examined the application, the government had clearly signaled its intent to use the name for a new military branch.
The Four-Part Test for False Suggestion of Connection
Courts apply a four-part test to determine whether a mark falsely suggests a connection:
- The mark is the same as, or a close approximation of, a name or identity previously used by another person or institution.
- The mark would be recognized as pointing uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.
- The named person or institution is not connected with the applicant’s activities.
- The person or institution’s fame or reputation is such that a connection would be presumed.
Why US SPACE FORCE Failed the False Association Test
In this case, all four factors were satisfied. The phrase “US SPACE FORCE” clearly pointed to a well-known government entity. That entity had no connection to Foster’s law firm or its services.
Government Names and Unmistakable Public Association
The court emphasized that a mark does not need to exactly match an official government name to create a false suggestion of connection. Even though the Space Force was not formally established at filing, the name was unmistakably tied to the United States.
Why Pop Culture References Did Not Matter
Foster argued that prior fictional uses of “Space Force,” including television references, weakened the association. The court disagreed. The strong public linkage to a newly announced military institution outweighed any fictional or generic uses.
Key Trademark Law Lessons From the Space Force Case
This decision highlights how timing, context, and public perception shape trademark rights. When a mark closely aligns with national identity or government authority, registration becomes far more difficult. For businesses and attorneys alike, the case reinforces the need to consider not only what a mark says, but what it signals to the public.