Republican and Democratic members press USPTO director over 'Board of Peace' trademark filings

House members used the USPTO oversight hearing to press Director K. Squires over newly disclosed trademarks the agency filed that reference a project called the "Board of Peace," a move critics said could create conflicts if the agency later adjudicates related disputes.

"You personally filed the trademark applications allowing USPTO to stand in as a straw trademark holder," the ranking member said, accusing the agency of effectively filing on behalf of a project linked to the president and of seeking a fee waiver that was later granted (SEG 766–773, SEG 1727–1735).

Squires replied that the filings were custodial intent‑to‑use applications made to prevent cybersquatting on domain names and marks that were being grabbed within minutes of the project's announcement. He said the office acted narrowly "as a custodian so that they could have the mark" until the entity was formed, and invoked his responsibilities under 35 U.S.C. to advise on national intellectual property matters (SEG 1620–1643, SEG 1708–1716).

Lawmakers pressed follow‑ups: whether the office should act as a custodian for private ventures, whether the filing runs afoul of the Lanham Act requirement that applicants have a bona fide intent to use a mark in commerce, and why the office sought and granted a fee waiver for the filing on consecutive days (SEG 1684–1692, SEG 1727–1735, SEG 1744–1751). Squires said he did not view the USPTO as the owner's representative and described the filing as limited to fraud prevention and misuse protection (SEG 1690–1696, SEG 1740–1745).

Members also noted competing, pre‑existing trademarks and organizations that use "peace" in their names and asked how USPTO would adjudicate disputes if it both owned and had to police a mark. One member warned of litigation and dilution claims from many pre‑existing peace groups and asked who would fairly decide cancellations or oppositions if the agency stood in as custodian (SEG 860–869, SEG 881–891).

Squires responded that prior common‑law and registered marks remain superior where appropriate and that a narrow custodial, intent‑to‑use filing would expire if the underlying entity never forms. He also said the office's filing was intended to prevent bad‑faith cybersquatting of an emerging project name (SEG 1816–1825, SEG 1823–1826).

Ending: Lawmakers asked the director to provide documents and records about the custody filing and the fee waiver; they said they would follow up with written questions and reserve the right to pursue additional oversight and, if appropriate, legal review of the agency's practice.

This item remains unresolved in the hearing record; the director acknowledged the office would provide documents and further explanation as requested (SEG 1746–1756, SEG 1808–1810).