Improper Use of Employer Logos by Former Employees

Is an employer’s logo protected as a trademark?

How Minnesota defines a mark

Under Minn. Stat. § 333.18, a trademark is any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination of them, that a person adopts and uses to identify goods that person makes or sells and to distinguish them from goods made or sold by others, and a trademark is “used” in Minnesota when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers, on the tags or labels affixed to them, or on displays associated with the goods, and the goods are sold or otherwise distributed in Minnesota for marketing or other legitimate business purposes. The same statute defines a service mark as a word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination of them, that a person adopts and uses to identify that person’s services and to distinguish them from the services of others, and a service mark is “adopted and used” when it is adopted and used in connection with the rendering, selling, or advertising of services in Minnesota to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from the services of others, and the services are rendered for marketing or other legitimate business purposes. A logo is a symbol or device, so the practical question for your business is how you have actually put it in front of customers: on products, packaging, labels, and displays, or in the way you sell and advertise your services.

Minnesota registration

Subject to the limitations in Minn. Stat. §§ 333.18 to 333.31, if you adopt and use a trademark or service mark in Minnesota, you may file an application to register that mark with the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State under Minn. Stat. § 333.20, subd. 1, where a trademark is “used” when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers, on the tags or labels affixed to them, or on displays associated with the goods and the goods are sold or otherwise distributed in Minnesota for marketing or other legitimate business purposes, and a service mark is “adopted and used” when it is adopted and used in connection with the rendering, selling, or advertising of services in Minnesota to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from the services of others and the services are rendered for marketing or other legitimate business purposes. What an employer can recover when someone misuses a mark is covered under Remedies available to the employer.

Federal registration and unregistered marks

For owners of federally registered trademarks and persons accused of infringing them, federal registration of a logo is prima facie evidence of the validity of the registered mark, but it does not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect, as noted in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015). Once a mark has been registered for five years it can become incontestable, and an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive.

Section 32 of the Lanham Act applies to registered marks, while Section 43(a) protects qualifying unregistered trademarks and prohibits a broader range of practices than Section 32 does, and whether an unregistered mark qualifies is decided for the most part by the general principles that qualify a mark for registration under Section 2 of the Act, as explained in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017). Under the Lanham Act, protected trademarks are shielded against infringement, meaning the use of similar marks on similar or related products or services where that use creates a likelihood of confusion, as stated in Select Comfort Corporation v. John Baxter, 996 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2021). How that standard applies to a former employee is the subject of When does a former employee’s logo use become infringement or false endorsement?

For more on the risks of relying on an unregistered logo, see Are You Unknowingly Breaking the Law by Using Logos Without Trademark Registration?, and if you are weighing registration, Minnesota Trademark Clearance: Search First walks through the search to run first. The broader trademark practice hub collects related guidance.

When does a former employee’s logo use become infringement or false endorsement?

In federal Lanham Act litigation between a trademark owner and an alleged infringer, such as a former employee using your logo, the court decides whether the use of the mark in commerce is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception with regard to your mark, as the Supreme Court described in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015). That is the question the court must answer, not a complete statement of everything an infringement claim requires. That standard appears in 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) for registered marks and in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) for unregistered marks.

In the Eighth Circuit, a trademark infringement claim becomes actionable and provable when the infringer’s use of the mark becomes likely to confuse customers about the source or sponsorship of the goods or services, as the court held in A.I.G. Agency, Inc. v. American International Group, 33 F.4th 1031 (8th Cir. 2022). When you review what a former employee is showing the public, look at it the way a customer would: who does the material suggest stands behind the goods or services? The timing consequences of that point are covered in the section titled How long does an employer have to act?

The Minnesota sponsorship and affiliation standard

Among the practices Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act lists, a person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the person passes off goods or services as those of another, causes a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding about the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services, or causes a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding about affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another, under Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1. Under Minn. Stat. § 325D.43, the terms defined in that section have the meanings given to them as used in sections 325D.43 to 325D.48, unless the context otherwise requires. Among those definitions, a “mark” means a word, name, symbol, device, or any combination of these in any form or arrangement. When you take stock of what a former employee is using, list your logo, your company name, and any combination of the two that appears on the employee’s materials.

To prevail in an action under sections 325D.43 to 325D.48, you do not need to prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding, under Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 2(a).

How closely an altered version of your logo has to resemble the original is addressed in the section titled Does a modified or look-alike logo avoid liability? For a broader walkthrough of how infringement claims proceed, see Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics, and for how careful buyers factor into the confusion question, see Trademark: Confusion Among Sophisticated Consumers.

Can a former employee show the old employer’s name or logo on a resume or LinkedIn profile?

The answer depends on how you use the name or logo.

What the federal statute covers

The statute also states that it shall not preclude another person from proving any legal or equitable defense or defect, including those set forth in subsection (b), which might have been asserted if such mark had not been registered (15 U.S.C. § 1115).

The section titled “Describing past work without the employer’s logo” walks through plain-text wording that keeps your description descriptive.

Who has to prove what

In Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. X One X Productions, 840 F.3d 971 (8th Cir. 2016), the Eighth Circuit stated that trademark fair use under 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(4) is an affirmative defense.

The burdens are split. Under KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004), a plaintiff claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of its prima facie case. A defendant raising the fair use defense under § 1115(b)(4) has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of any confusion. That defense covers a use, otherwise than as a mark, of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin. Some degree of confusion is compatible with fair use, but the decision does not foreclose the relevance of the extent of any likely consumer confusion in assessing whether a defendant’s use is objectively fair.

For how courts approach confusion generally, see Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics and the section titled “When does a former employee’s logo use become infringement or false endorsement?”

Describing past work without the employer’s logo

Write the name as words, not as a graphic

Type your former employer’s name in the same font, size, and color as the rest of your resume, profile, or bio. Leave out the company’s logo, its stylized lettering, its tagline, and its brand colors. A plain-text name tells the reader where you worked. A logo makes the entry look like company material, which is the impression you want to avoid.

State the facts of your role

• Your title as it actually was. Use the title on your offer letter or last performance review, not a description that inflates it.
• Start and end dates. Show the end date so a reader can see at a glance that the job is over.
• What you did. Describe your responsibilities and results in your own language rather than copying the company’s marketing copy or slogans.

Make your current role the clear headline

Write former positions in the past tense and put your current business or employer first. If you now run your own company, lead with your own name and branding so a client or prospect sees who you are today before reading where you used to work.

Describe accomplishments without implying a continuing tie

Phrase past work as history, not as an ongoing relationship. “Managed regional sales for Acme Corporation from 2019 to 2024” describes a job. Phrases such as “Acme-trained and approved,” “formerly with Acme, still serving Acme customers,” or “Acme team” suggest that your former employer stands behind your new work. If you mention clients or projects from that job, describe them by industry or type rather than by presenting them as your current accounts.

Clean up the materials you carry forward

Before you reuse anything from your old job, check it for leftover branding:

• Slide decks, proposal templates, and one-page summaries built on the company’s templates
• Portfolio pieces and work samples that show the company logo
• Headshots or photos taken in front of company signage or in branded apparel
• Website bios, speaker profiles, and directory listings you have not updated since you left

Rebuild templates in your own design, crop or redact logos from samples you want to show, and ask your former employer before displaying any piece that still carries its branding. For how the law treats a former employee’s reference to an old employer, see the section titled “Can a former employee show the old employer’s name or logo on a resume or LinkedIn profile?” and the overview in Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics. More trademark resources are collected on the trademark practice page.

Does a modified or look-alike logo avoid liability?

Subject to the provisions of section 333.30, under Minn. Stat. § 333.28(b), a person who reproduces, counterfeits, copies, or colorably imitates a Minnesota-registered mark and applies that reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, or advertisements intended to be used upon or in conjunction with the sale or other distribution of goods or the sale or rendering of services is liable to a civil action by the owner of the registered mark for any or all of the remedies provided in section 333.29 (Minn. Stat. § 333.28(b)). However, under subsection (b) the registrant is not entitled to recover profits or damages unless the acts have been committed with knowledge that the mark is intended to be used to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. The section titled Remedies available to the employer covers what those remedies look like in practice.

Similarity decides the outcome

A former employee who tweaks your colors, rearranges your initials, or redraws your symbol is betting that the new version is different enough. In Minneapple Co. v. Normandin, 338 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. 1983), the court assumed that the plaintiff’s design was entitled to trademark protection. It held that the defendant’s competing design did not rise to the level of similarity required to constitute either trademark infringement under Minn. Stat. § 333.28 (1982) or common-law unfair competition, of which likelihood of purchaser confusion is also an element.

As quoted by the court in Minneapple Co. v. Normandin, 338 N.W.2d 18 (Minn. 1983), and assuming the mark is entitled to trademark protection, Minn. Stat. § 333.28 (1982) placed the burden of proof on the owner of a Minnesota-registered mark suing for infringement to show that the accused design is “identical to or so similar to the registered mark as to be likely to cause confusion or mistake on the part of a purchaser of the goods or services or to deceive such a purchaser as to the source or origin of the goods or services,” subject to the other conditions of that statute. The court did not decide whether a design may simultaneously serve an aesthetic function and constitute a trademark, because it resolved the case on the similarity of the two designs.

What this means for you

Before you treat a look-alike logo as a clear violation, put the two designs side by side and ask how a customer would actually encounter them: on a website, a business card, a proposal, or a social media profile. Note each shared element and each difference, and gather any examples of customers or vendors who asked whether the former employee still works with you. That record shapes whether a demand letter is worth sending. For a deeper look at how designs are compared, see Substantial Similarity Analysis for Trademarks and Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics. Whether your logo is registered in Minnesota, registered federally, or not registered at all is addressed in the section titled Is an employer’s logo protected as a trademark?, and more resources are collected on the trademark practice area page.

Old email signatures and materials that imply a continuing connection

A former employee who keeps sending email under your company’s signature block, or who hands out your letterhead and business cards after leaving, can commit a deceptive trade practice under Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1 when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, that person causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, your company. The difference from a resume line is tense: these materials tell the recipient the person works for you now, not that the person worked for you once.

Materials that tend to signal a present connection

• An email signature that still shows your company name, logo, and the person’s old title, sent from a personal or new-employer account.
• Business cards, letterhead, or proposal templates carrying your branding that are reused in new work.
• A personal website, directory listing, or online bio that describes the person as a current member of your team.
• Slide decks or marketing pieces built on your branded templates and presented to prospects.

An accurate statement of past employment raises a different question, which the section titled “Can a former employee show the old employer’s name or logo on a resume or LinkedIn profile?” addresses.

Confusion about goods and services, not only affiliation

Under Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 1, a person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the person passes off goods or services as those of another, or causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.

What you need to show, and what else may apply

To prevail in an action under Minnesota Statutes sections 325D.43 to 325D.48, you need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding, as Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 2(a) provides.

The statute is also not your only avenue: Minn. Stat. § 325D.44, subd. 3 states that the section does not affect unfair, deceptive, or misleading trade practices otherwise actionable at common law or under other Minnesota statutes.

When you find old materials in circulation, save copies of what you see, including the date, the sender, and the recipient, before you raise it with the former employee. The sections titled “Remedies available to the employer” and “Offboarding steps to stop continued use of branded materials” cover what you can seek and how to keep the problem from recurring, and the Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics page gives broader context on protecting your brand.

Can an employment agreement or company policy restrict logo use after the job ends?

How the noncompete statute defines the covenants it covers

Under Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 1(a), a “covenant not to compete” is an agreement between an employee and employer that restricts the employee, after the employment ends, from performing work for another employer for a specified period of time, work in a specified geographical area, or work for another employer in a capacity similar to the employee’s work for the employer that is party to the agreement. The same subdivision provides that a covenant not to compete does not include a nondisclosure agreement or an agreement designed to protect trade secrets or confidential information. Before you assume a branding clause rises or falls with your noncompete, read its actual wording against that definition.

Other provisions in the same agreement

Under Minn. Stat. § 181.988, subd. 2(c), subdivision 2 of the statute does not make void or unenforceable any other provision in a contract or agreement that also contains a void or unenforceable covenant not to compete. As a drafting matter, write your logo and branding terms as their own numbered provision, separate from any restriction on where or for whom the employee may work, so a reader can identify each obligation on its own terms.

When a restriction is written too broadly

Be cautious about authority cited on either side of a dispute over a restriction’s scope. In Dynamic Air, Inc. v. Bloch, 502 N.W.2d 796 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993), the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated that the district court committed error in relying upon an unpublished opinion for the proposition that a restrictive covenant lacking a territorial limitation is per se unenforceable.

Contract terms and trademark claims work side by side

A contract provision is one tool; your rights in the logo itself are another. The section titled “When does a former employee’s logo use become infringement or false endorsement?” covers the trademark side, and Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics gives a broader overview. For more on protecting your brand, see the trademark practice hub.

Remedies available to the employer

For how infringement claims work more broadly, see Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics.

Injunctions under the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act

Under Minn. Stat. § 325D.45, subd. 1, if you are likely to be damaged by a former employee’s deceptive trade practice, a court may grant you an injunction against it under the principles of equity and on terms the court considers reasonable, you do not have to prove monetary damage, loss of profits, or intent to deceive, and where the relief is granted for the copying of an article, it is limited to preventing confusion or misunderstanding as to source. For persons pursuing relief for deceptive trade practices in Minnesota, the relief in that section is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or other Minnesota statutes.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act provides only injunctive relief, which a court may award in its discretion under the principles of equity to a person likely to be damaged by a deceptive trade practice (Dennis Simmons D.D.S., P.A. v. Modern Aero, Inc., 603 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999)). A plaintiff who sought damages rather than an injunction therefore did not state a claim for which relief could be granted, and attorney fees under the Act are available only after a party has prevailed on a claim for injunctive relief.

Profits, damages, and costs under the Lanham Act

In a federal Lanham Act civil action, when you establish a violation of any right of the registrant of a federally registered mark, a violation under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) or (d), or a willful violation under § 1125(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1117 entitles you to recover the defendant’s profits, any damages you sustained, and the costs of the action, subject to sections 1111 and 1114 and to the principles of equity. Quoting this provision in Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 1492 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court noted that, for a trademark owner seeking monetary remedies under the Lanham Act, the statute makes a showing of willfulness a precondition to a profits award when you proceed under § 1125(c).

In assessing damages in a federal Lanham Act case under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), the court may enter judgment for any sum above the actual damages found, up to three times that amount, according to the circumstances of the case (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)). Any such enhanced sum is compensation and not a penalty.

Remedies for a Minnesota-registered mark

If your mark is registered under Minn. Stat. §§ 333.18 to 333.31, Minn. Stat. § 333.29, subd. 1 lets you sue to stop the manufacture, use, display, or sale of any counterfeits or imitations of the mark, and a court of competent jurisdiction may grant injunctions restraining that manufacture, use, display, or sale as it considers just and reasonable. Under Minn. Stat. § 333.29, in an action by the owner of a mark registered under Minn. Stat. §§ 333.18 to 333.31 over counterfeits or imitations of the mark, if the court finds the other party committed the wrongful acts with knowledge or in bad faith, or otherwise according to the circumstances of the case, the court may in its discretion enter judgment for an amount not to exceed three times the profits derived from, and damages suffered by reason of, the wrongful manufacture, use, display, or sale, plus the prevailing party’s reasonable attorneys’ fees (Minn. Stat. § 333.29, subd. 1).

Subject to the provisions of section 333.30, when your claim under Minn. Stat. § 333.28(b) rests on reproducing, counterfeiting, copying, or colorably imitating your registered mark, you cannot recover profits or damages unless the acts were committed with knowledge that the mark is intended to be used to cause confusion or mistake or to deceive. The other remedies of section 333.29 remain available. The heading “Does a modified or look-alike logo avoid liability?” covers when a look-alike logo counts as a colorable imitation.

How long does an employer have to act?

No single fixed deadline answers this question for a federal claim: the Lanham Act contains no statute of limitations, but it expressly allows a defendant, including a former employee you sue, to raise equitable principles, including laches, as a defense (Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. 663 (2014)). The page on laches defense in trademarks explains how that defense is argued.

When your claim arises

The Eighth Circuit has stated that a trademark infringement claim becomes actionable and provable when the infringer’s use of the mark becomes likely to confuse customers as to the source or sponsorship of the goods or services (A.I.G. Agency, Inc. v. American International Group, 33 F.4th 1031 (8th Cir. 2022)). In practice, a former employee’s use of your logo may start out harmless and become a problem when it begins to suggest that you still stand behind the person’s work. Keep a dated record of when you first see each use and when it starts to look like a continuing connection, so you can show when your claim arose and how quickly you responded. How that confusion is judged is covered in the section titled “When does a former employee’s logo use become infringement or false endorsement?”

Minnesota’s six-year periods

Minnesota sets six-year periods for several kinds of claims an employer may consider. Under Minn. Stat. § 541.05, except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, an action upon a contract or other obligation, express or implied, must be commenced within six years, unless another limitation is expressly prescribed for it. Under the same statute, except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, an action upon a liability created by statute must be commenced within six years, other than those arising upon a penalty or forfeiture or where a shorter period is provided by section 541.07. Also except where the Uniform Commercial Code otherwise prescribes, an action for criminal conversation, or for any other injury to the person or rights of another that does not arise on contract and is not one of the actions the statute goes on to enumerate, must be commenced within six years.

If your concern rests on an employment agreement or company policy, the section titled “Can an employment agreement or company policy restrict logo use after the job ends?” addresses which provisions may apply. For the broader framework, see Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics and the trademark practice hub.

Offboarding steps to stop continued use of branded materials

You stop a former employee’s continued use of your logo by treating branded materials as company property at departure: collect what is physical, disable what is digital, and confirm the result in writing before the last day ends.

Before the last day

• Inventory what the employee holds. List the business cards, letterhead, envelopes, presentation templates, branded apparel, trade show displays, signage, vehicle wraps, and promotional items assigned to the person. Your purchasing records and marketing team usually know what was ordered in that employee’s name.
• Identify every account that displays your brand. Include company email, the email signature block, scheduling links, video conferencing backgrounds, e-signature profiles, CRM and proposal software, and any vendor or customer portal where the employee appears as your representative.
• Decide who owns each social media and directory listing. Separate company pages the employee administers from the employee’s personal profiles, and plan to transfer administrator rights on company pages before access ends.

On the last day

• Collect physical materials in person. Use a written return checklist that the employee signs, listing each category of branded item returned. Ask about home offices and personal vehicles, where cards and letterhead tend to accumulate.
• Disable the company email account and signature. Turn off sending from the account, remove the employee’s access to shared signature templates, and set an automatic reply that directs contacts to a current employee.
• Revoke access to branded templates and file shares. Remove the person from drives that hold logo files, slide decks, and letterhead templates so new materials cannot be produced from them.
• Remove the employee from company listings. Update your website team page, online directories, review platforms, and industry association listings that show the person as part of your business.

After departure

• Notify key customers and vendors. A short message naming the new point of contact reduces the chance that a client relies on an old card or signature to reach someone who no longer represents you.
• Ask for edits to lingering online content. If a personal profile, personal website, or new employer’s page still displays your logo, send a polite written request asking the person to replace it with a plain-text reference to past employment. The section “Describing past work without the employer’s logo” covers phrasing a former employee can use instead.
• Keep a dated record. Save screenshots of any continued use, copies of your requests, and the responses you receive.
• Review your policy and agreements for the next departure. Add a branded-materials return item to your standard offboarding checklist, and see “Can an employment agreement or company policy restrict logo use after the job ends?” for how those terms are treated.

If a polite request does not end the use, the sections “When does a former employee’s logo use become infringement or false endorsement?” and “Remedies available to the employer” explain where the law draws the line, and Minnesota Trademark Infringement Basics gives a broader overview. More resources are collected on the trademark practice page.

Start by saving dated copies of any continued use you find, comparing any look-alike design side by side with your own, and noting any customer or vendor who asked whether the former employee still works with you. Before the next departure, add a branded-materials return item to your standard offboarding checklist and review how your agreements address logo and branding terms.