"NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED" Fails to Function as a Source Indicator for Business Consulting and Legal Information Services

The Board affirmed a failure-to-function refusal of the proposed mark NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED for business consulting, educational, and legal information services, finding that applicant uses the phrase to convey information about its services, and that third-parties use the phrase "for the same purpose for closely related goods and services also offering business and legal information." In re Protect for Success, LLC, Serial No. 98051678 (January 21, 2026) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Elizabeth A. Dunn).

The Board observed that "'failure to function' is an umbrella term because there are many reasons why a proposed mark may not function as an indicator of source."

In addition to the proposed mark being merely informational, the proposed mark may be, for example, the title of a single creative work, a trade name, or a model number. The informational failure to function refusal itself has sub-categories, for example, the informational message is a widely used or commonplace message, or merely conveys general information about the goods or services.

The Board agreed with Examining Attorney Amit Shoor that "the placement of NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED amidst other information about Applicant’s services supports the finding that Applicant’s use of NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED would be perceived as merely conveying information about the level of education required for consumers of Applicant’s three classes of services."

Evidence of third-party use of NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED demonstrated that the phrase "has an ordinary meaning that conveys that prospective customers do not require legal training to understand legal concepts in an article or publication ..., or to perform certain jobs in the legal field ...." The Board noted that applicant’s services are unrestricted as to the services performed, and so may include the use of written materials; the services are also unrestricted as to purpose, and so may include the purpose of aiding job performance in the legal field.

We agree [with the applicant] that NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED may not be informational in all contexts, without finding the point particularly relevant. Whether, for example, the consumer of canned peas would see NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED on the can and perceive it as a mark is not the issue before us. Instead, we assess the evidence that the term as used by Applicant will be perceived as a mark by the relevant consumers of Applicant’s business and legal information services.

The Board concluded that Applicant uses NO LAW DEGREE REQUIRED to convey the information that prospective customers for its business consultation services, educational courses, and legal information services do not need legal training. Third-party uses show the term used for the same purpose for closely related goods and services also offering business and legal information.

And so, the Board affirmed the refusal.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Is this a WYHA? 

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2026.