Yes. A company can own the trademark for a consumer product even when a separate private-label manufacturer, co-packer, factory, or contract manufacturer physically produces every unit of the product.
Manufacturing the goods and owning the customer-facing trademark are separate functions.
Current USPTO guidance expressly recognizes this arrangement. TMEP § 1201.05 states that when an applicant contracts with another party to manufacture goods and instructs that party to place the applicant’s trademark on those goods, the manufacturer’s application of the mark can be treated as the equivalent of the applicant placing the mark on the goods itself.
This structure is common across food and beverage products, cosmetics, skincare, household products, clothing, supplements, pet products, toys, accessories, and other consumer goods.
However, the brand owner should not assume ownership merely because its name appears prominently on the packaging. Trademark ownership should be supported by the actual commercial relationship, including who adopted the mark, who controls how it is used, whose goodwill the mark represents, and, when another party uses the trademark, who controls the nature and quality of the branded goods.
Getting this question right is particularly important before filing with the USPTO because an application filed by the wrong owner can be void and generally cannot be repaired simply by transferring it later.
What Is a Private-Label Product?
A private-label product is generally manufactured by one business but marketed and sold under another company’s brand.
For example, a retailer may develop a household-products brand and hire a factory to manufacture the products. A skincare startup might choose its own name and packaging while using an outside laboratory to formulate and fill the products. A beverage company may own no production facility and instead rely entirely on a co-packer.
Consumers primarily encounter the customer-facing brand rather than the manufacturer behind the scenes.
That commercial structure creates an important trademark question: does the company selling the brand own the trademark, or does the company physically producing the goods own it?
Physical manufacturing alone does not answer that question.
Does the Private-Label Manufacturer Automatically Own the Trademark?
No.
A private-label manufacturer does not automatically acquire trademark ownership merely because it makes, fills, packages, or labels the goods.
TMEP § 1201.05 specifically addresses contract manufacturing. The USPTO states that an applicant may claim ownership when another party produces goods for the applicant and places the mark on those goods at the applicant’s instruction. That arrangement is treated as the equivalent of the applicant itself applying the trademark.
Suppose a startup creates the hypothetical brand VELORA, hires a manufacturer to make reusable kitchen products, supplies or approves the VELORA packaging, and directs the manufacturer to place VELORA on every product.
The fact that the factory physically prints VELORA onto the goods does not, by itself, make the factory the trademark owner.
These examples are hypothetical and have not been searched for trademark availability.
Can a Brand Own a Trademark Without Owning a Factory?
Yes.
Trademark ownership does not require vertical integration.
A company can outsource manufacturing, packaging, fulfillment, logistics, and distribution while retaining ownership of the source-identifying brand consumers recognize.
This is one of the core principles behind private-label and contract-manufacturing businesses.
A consumer products company may therefore own a valuable trademark portfolio while owning little or no manufacturing equipment.
The trademark represents the source and goodwill associated with the branded goods, not ownership of the machines used to produce them.
Cohn Legal’s existing private-label guidance similarly explains that manufacturing, distribution, and trademark ownership are distinct commercial roles.
Why Does Quality Control Matter to Trademark Ownership?
Control over the nature and quality of goods becomes particularly important when another company is using the owner’s trademark.
Section 5 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1055, provides that legitimate trademark use by a related company can inure to the benefit of the trademark owner. It also provides that another party’s first use can benefit the applicant or registrant when that use is controlled with respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services.
The Lanham Act defines a “related company” as a party whose trademark use is controlled by the trademark owner with respect to the nature and quality of the relevant goods or services.
Current TMEP § 1201.01 follows the same principle, stating that when a mark is used by a related company, the owner is the party controlling the nature and quality of the goods or services.
For a private-label company, quality control might involve approving product specifications, ingredients, materials, manufacturing tolerances, packaging, labeling, suppliers, testing requirements, finished samples, or other standards relevant to the particular product.
The brand owner does not necessarily need to manufacture the goods itself. It should, however, maintain appropriate control over what consumers receive under its trademark.
Does the Brand Owner Need to Control Every Manufacturing Detail?
Not necessarily.
Trademark quality control does not mean the brand owner must personally supervise every production step.
A manufacturer may retain expertise and discretion concerning technical production details while the trademark owner establishes and enforces the standards associated with the branded product.
The appropriate level and type of control will depend on the goods and relationship.
For a food product, controls might involve recipes, ingredients, allergens, packaging, testing, and product specifications. For clothing, they might involve fabrics, construction standards, sizing, labeling, and approved designs. For household goods, the owner might approve materials, dimensions, appearance, packaging, and performance standards.
The core trademark question is whether the party claiming ownership exercises sufficient control over the nature and quality of goods sold under the mark.
Is a Written Manufacturing Agreement Required to Own the Trademark?
Not necessarily, but a written agreement can be extremely important.
Trademark ownership is determined by the actual legal and commercial relationship, not solely by one contractual sentence.
Current TMEP guidance recognizes that controlled relationships can exist through contractual arrangements, but the critical issue remains control over the nature and quality of the goods or services.
For a private-label business, a written manufacturing agreement can remove significant uncertainty.
The agreement can expressly state who owns the brand, which party may file trademark applications, how the manufacturer may use the trademark, whether the manufacturer can produce similar goods for others, what quality standards apply, and what happens to branded inventory and packaging after termination.
The contract and the real-world relationship should tell the same story.
What Should a Private-Label Manufacturing Agreement Say About the Trademark?
The agreement should clearly identify which party owns the relevant trademarks.
This can include the primary house brand, product-line names, individual product names, logos, slogans, packaging marks, and other source identifiers.
The manufacturer can then receive a limited right to reproduce those marks solely as necessary to manufacture authorized products for the brand owner.
The agreement can also address whether the manufacturer may register the trademark in any jurisdiction, use similar branding for another customer, retain branded packaging after termination, or use the brand in its portfolio or marketing.
For businesses sourcing products internationally, those restrictions can be particularly important.
Trademark ownership should not be left to assumptions buried beneath purchasing terms.
What if the Manufacturer Created the Brand Name?
That can change the analysis.
There is an important difference between a manufacturer merely producing goods under a customer’s existing trademark and a manufacturer that already developed or owns the brand.
Suppose Manufacturer A has sold products under the mark VELORA for several years and later appoints Retailer B to distribute those products.
Retailer B does not automatically acquire the VELORA trademark merely because it becomes the primary seller.
TMEP § 1201.06(a) states that a distributor or importer does not acquire ownership of a manufacturer’s mark simply by moving the manufacturer’s goods in trade.
The situation is very different if Retailer B independently develops VELORA and hires Manufacturer A solely to produce VELORA goods at Retailer B’s direction.
The history of who created, adopted, used, and controlled the mark therefore matters.
Does a Distributor Own the Trademark Because It Sells the Products?
Generally, not merely because it distributes them.
USPTO guidance specifically distinguishes distribution from ownership.
TMEP § 1201.06(a) states that a distributor, importer, or other distributing agent does not acquire ownership of a manufacturer’s trademark simply because it moves the manufacturer’s goods through commerce.
A distributor may handle warehousing, wholesale accounts, retailer relationships, Amazon listings, fulfillment, advertising, and the majority of commercial sales without automatically becoming the trademark owner.
The parties may contractually structure U.S. ownership differently in some relationships, particularly those involving foreign manufacturers and domestic distributors. The TMEP identifies written consent, ownership agreements, and assignments as potential documentation in those circumstances.
The distribution agreement should therefore state who owns the mark instead of assuming sales volume determines ownership.
Can a Retailer Own a Private-Label Trademark?
Yes.
Many store brands are owned by the retailer rather than by the factory manufacturing the product.
A retailer may develop the brand, select the product specifications, control packaging, approve manufacturers, market the products, and maintain the customer relationship while outsourcing all physical production.
In that structure, the retailer may own the trademark.
The manufacturer’s role may be limited to producing goods and applying the retailer’s mark according to instructions.
This model illustrates why trademark ownership and manufacturing ownership should not be treated as the same thing.
What Is the Difference Between Private Label and White Label for Trademark Ownership?
The terms are sometimes used differently across industries, but a white-label arrangement commonly involves a manufacturer offering a relatively standardized product that several businesses can sell under their own brands.
A private-label relationship may involve greater customization, exclusivity, or product development for one brand.
For trademark ownership, however, the same basic question applies.
If several businesses purchase essentially the same underlying product but each sells it under a different customer-facing trademark, each brand company can potentially own its own trademark even though the goods come from the same manufacturer.
The manufacturer may separately own intellectual property relating to the underlying product, formula, manufacturing process, or its own corporate brand.
Trademark ownership of the private-label name should be analyzed independently.
Who Should File the USPTO Trademark Application?
The actual trademark owner should file a use-based application.
For an intent-to-use application, the application must be filed by the party possessing the relevant bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce.
This is not merely an administrative detail.
Current TMEP § 1201.02(b) states that when an application is filed in the name of the wrong party, the defect cannot generally be cured through amendment or assignment. A Section 1(a) application filed by a party that did not own the mark on the filing date is void.
Accordingly, the brand company should determine ownership before filing rather than first filing under whichever founder, manufacturer, subsidiary, or business entity happens to be convenient.
Can the Founder File Personally and Transfer the Trademark to the Company Later?
Sometimes, but filing personally should not be used casually when the company is actually the owner or the party with the bona fide intent.
The USPTO distinguishes between an actual owner whose name was stated incorrectly and an application filed by the wrong legal party.
A clerical mistake in identifying an existing owner may sometimes be correctable. Substituting an entirely different owner generally is not.
For example, the current TMEP specifically identifies a situation where the president of a corporation files personally even though the corporation owns the trademark as a non-correctable ownership error.
Private-label startups should therefore settle the ownership structure before the federal application is filed.
Can an Intent-to-Use Application Be Transferred to Another Company?
There are special restrictions.
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1060, a Section 1(b) intent-to-use application generally cannot be assigned before the required amendment to allege use or statement of use is filed, except to a successor to the applicant’s ongoing and existing business, or the relevant portion of that business, to which the mark pertains.
This can matter when a founder files personally before forming a company or when a private-label venture is reorganized during product development.
An ordinary assumption that “we can just transfer it later” may therefore be incorrect for an early intent-to-use application.
Selecting the right applicant at the beginning can avoid a much more complicated ownership analysis later.
Can the Manufacturer’s Use Count as the Brand Owner’s Trademark Use?
Yes, in appropriate circumstances.
Section 1055 provides that controlled use by another party may inure to the benefit of the trademark owner, including qualifying first use when the applicant controls the nature and quality of the goods.
Additionally, TMEP § 1201.05 specifically provides that when an applicant contracts with another party to manufacture goods and instructs the manufacturer to place the applicant’s mark on them, that can be treated as the applicant itself placing the mark on the goods.
The surrounding commercial activity must still satisfy the statutory requirements for trademark use in commerce.
Under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, trademark use on goods generally requires placement of the mark on the goods, containers, displays, tags, or labels, together with sale or transportation of the goods in commerce.
Does the Manufacturer’s Name on the Label Mean It Owns the Trademark?
No.
Private-label packaging may identify several businesses.
A package might state “manufactured by,” “manufactured for,” “distributed by,” or identify a factory or other company for regulatory or commercial reasons.
The presence of that name does not automatically determine ownership of the main trademark.
The current TMEP states that the USPTO generally does not inquire into another party appearing on a specimen unless the record clearly contradicts the applicant’s ownership claim. For example, an inquiry may arise if the application materials specifically identify the applicant merely as a licensee or distributor rather than the owner.
The federal application, packaging, agreements, and commercial practices should therefore be consistent enough to support the asserted ownership structure.
Does Owning the Trademark Mean the Brand Owns the Product Formula?
No.
Trademark ownership and formula ownership are separate intellectual property and contractual questions.
A private-label manufacturer may offer an existing formulation used for many customers. Each customer applies a different brand to essentially the same underlying product.
In that arrangement, the manufacturer may retain rights in its formulation or manufacturing know-how while the customer owns its separate trademark.
The opposite arrangement is also possible.
A consumer brand might develop a proprietary recipe, formula, or specification and hire a factory only to manufacture it.
Contracts should address formulas, recipes, specifications, improvements, manufacturing processes, confidential information, and the right to transfer production to another manufacturer.
Owning a trademark does not automatically give the brand owner ownership of everything used to make the product.
Does Owning the Trademark Mean the Brand Owns the Packaging Artwork?
Not necessarily.
Trademark rights in the brand name and copyright rights in packaging artwork are separate.
A private-label business might own the word mark displayed on a package while an outside graphic designer, photographer, illustrator, or agency initially owns certain creative materials used in the packaging, depending on how the work was created and the parties’ agreements.
Accordingly, private-label agreements and design contracts should separately address ownership of logos, illustrations, photography, label artwork, source files, and other creative assets.
A company preparing to change manufacturers or sell the brand should know whether it actually possesses the rights necessary to continue using all aspects of the existing packaging.
Can the Manufacturer Own the Formula While the Customer Owns the Brand?
Yes.
This is a common private-label structure.
The manufacturer can own the technical product while the brand company owns the commercial identity attached to it.
For example, a cosmetics laboratory may offer a standardized moisturizer formulation to multiple customers. Brand A markets it under one trademark, while Brand B uses an entirely different trademark.
The laboratory’s rights in the formula do not automatically give it ownership of either customer’s trademark.
Likewise, the customer’s trademark ownership does not automatically prevent the laboratory from manufacturing the same underlying formula for another business unless the contract provides exclusivity or other restrictions.
Trademark ownership and product exclusivity should therefore be negotiated separately.
What if the Brand Paid the Manufacturer to Develop a Custom Product?
Payment alone does not necessarily resolve every intellectual property question.
A brand may believe that paying development fees means it owns the resulting formula, tooling, design files, packaging, molds, recipes, or manufacturing specifications.
The manufacturer may understand the same payment as compensation for development services while retaining the underlying intellectual property.
The agreement should define ownership before development begins.
This is especially important when the business expects eventually to move manufacturing to another supplier.
A strong trademark is less useful if the company discovers that it cannot reproduce the product sold under that trademark without the former manufacturer’s permission.
Can a Manufacturer Register the Customer’s Trademark?
The manufacturer should not automatically be treated as entitled to register a brand simply because it produces goods bearing that mark.
If the customer owns the mark and directs the manufacturer to apply it to goods, current USPTO guidance recognizes the customer as potentially making the relevant trademark use itself.
A manufacturing agreement can expressly prohibit the manufacturer, its affiliates, or subcontractors from registering or attempting to register the customer’s marks or confusingly similar marks.
This can be particularly important in international manufacturing relationships.
Trademark rights are territorial, and a dispute over who files first in another country can complicate sourcing and international expansion considerably.
Can a Manufacturer Use the Same Customer Brand for Another Company?
Ordinarily, not if the trademark belongs to the brand owner and the manufacturer has permission to use it only for authorized production.
The manufacturing agreement should define the manufacturer’s license narrowly.
Its use might be limited to applying the mark to goods manufactured for the brand owner, packaging those goods, and performing related production obligations.
Using that customer trademark on products sold to another buyer could create contractual and trademark concerns.
The agreement should also address confusingly similar private-label names where commercially appropriate.
A manufacturer producing similar underlying products for numerous businesses should be free to conduct its legitimate business without misappropriating the source identity of an existing customer.
Can Two Companies Jointly Own a Private-Label Trademark?
Joint ownership is possible, but it may create practical complications.
Questions can arise over who can license the mark, who pays prosecution and maintenance expenses, who controls quality, who brings enforcement actions, whether one owner can settle a dispute, and what happens when the business relationship ends.
For many private-label collaborations, clearer ownership in one entity with appropriately defined contractual rights for the other party may provide a more manageable long-term structure.
If joint ownership is contemplated, the parties should address governance from the beginning rather than waiting until the brand becomes valuable.
What Happens in a Co-Branded Product?
A co-branded product may contain trademarks owned by different parties.
For example, a retailer and established manufacturer may release a collaborative product showing both existing brands.
Each company can retain ownership of its preexisting trademark while granting the other limited contractual permission to use it for the collaboration.
A new name created specifically for the collaboration raises a separate question.
The agreement should identify who owns the newly created mark, which party may register it, who controls enforcement, whether it can be used after the collaboration, and whether either party receives continuing licensing rights.
Existing trademark ownership and newly created intellectual property should be treated separately.
What Happens if the Brand Changes Manufacturers?
Changing manufacturers generally does not require changing trademark ownership simply because production moves to a different factory.
If the brand company genuinely owns the trademark, it can ordinarily authorize another manufacturer to produce goods under that mark, subject to contracts and other applicable rights.
The outgoing manufacturing agreement becomes important.
It should address unused labels, packaging, molds, branded components, confidential information, production records, finished inventory, quality documentation, and any permitted sell-off period.
The former manufacturer should generally not continue applying the mark to newly manufactured goods after authorization ends.
The new manufacturer should receive clear instructions concerning authorized trademark use and product standards.
Can the Old Manufacturer Sell Leftover Branded Inventory?
That depends on the agreement and surrounding facts.
Private-label contracts should address finished inventory and branded components at termination.
Possible arrangements include requiring the manufacturer to return products to the brand owner, permitting the owner to purchase remaining inventory, requiring destruction of certain branded materials, or allowing a limited authorized sell-off.
Without clear contractual provisions, leftover inventory can create disputes concerning authorization, quality, distribution channels, and continuing use of the trademark.
The termination section should therefore be negotiated while the parties still have a functioning commercial relationship.
Can a Private-Label Trademark Be Assigned or Sold?
Yes, qualifying trademark rights can generally be transferred.
Section 10 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1060, provides that registered marks and applications may be assigned with the goodwill of the business connected with and symbolized by the mark. Assignments must be made through duly executed written instruments.
This matters when a consumer-products company sells an individual brand, transfers intellectual property to a holding company, undergoes an acquisition, or reorganizes its assets.
The statutory restriction on pre-use assignments of Section 1(b) applications must also be considered.
A trademark transfer should therefore be coordinated with the underlying business and goodwill rather than treated merely as changing a name in a USPTO database.
Why Does Private-Label Trademark Ownership Matter During an Acquisition?
Trademark ownership can become a significant due-diligence issue.
A buyer purchasing a successful consumer brand may want confirmation that the seller actually owns the names and logos customers associate with the products.
The buyer may review federal registrations, pending applications, manufacturing contracts, assignments, licensing arrangements, packaging, first-use records, quality-control provisions, and agreements with founders or distributors.
Formula ownership may also matter.
A valuable consumer brand can become substantially less attractive if the seller owns the trademark but cannot continue manufacturing the product after an acquisition because the supplier owns essential formulations or tooling.
Likewise, a successful product line can present risk if the seller has never resolved whether its long-time manufacturer has competing claims to the brand.
Clear intellectual property ownership increases transaction certainty.
Does Using an Overseas Manufacturer Change the Trademark Ownership Rules?
Not automatically.
The fact that products are manufactured outside the United States does not by itself mean the foreign factory owns the U.S. trademark.
Current TMEP § 1201.06(b) states that when a specimen indicates the goods were manufactured in another country, the examining attorney ordinarily will not inquire into whether the foreign manufacturer owns the mark unless the record contradicts the applicant’s ownership claim.
However, international manufacturing creates additional issues.
The brand company should consider trademark ownership and registration in the country where manufacturing occurs, restrictions on factory use, rights in packaging and tooling, and what happens to branded materials after production ends.
A U.S. trademark registration protects U.S. rights. It does not automatically determine ownership in every foreign jurisdiction.
What Is the Difference Between a Private-Label Manufacturer and a Trademark Licensee?
The relationships can overlap, but they are not necessarily the same.
A contract manufacturer may simply produce goods and apply a trademark at the owner’s instruction. TMEP § 1201.05 recognizes that situation as potentially equivalent to use directly by the applicant.
A trademark licensee, by contrast, is expressly authorized to use another party’s trademark under a licensing relationship.
When trademark use occurs through a related company or controlled licensee, control over the nature and quality of the goods is central.
Private-label contracts should therefore reflect the actual structure rather than automatically labeling every factory a licensee.
What Happens if the Brand Owner Does Not Exercise Quality Control?
Insufficient control can create serious trademark risks in licensing and related-company situations.
Current USPTO guidance emphasizes that ownership through related-company use centers on control over the nature and quality of the goods. The TMEP also recognizes that failure to exercise sufficient control over licensees can potentially jeopardize trademark rights.
A private-label company should therefore avoid treating quality control as paperwork that exists only in the contract.
The brand should maintain actual approval and oversight practices appropriate to the product.
This can also serve broader commercial goals by reducing inconsistent manufacturing, customer complaints, and product-quality problems.
What Documents Can Help Establish Private-Label Trademark Ownership?
The evidence will depend on the relationship.
Relevant records can include manufacturing agreements, purchase orders, product specifications, communications instructing the manufacturer to use the trademark, approved packaging files, invoices, quality requirements, inspection records, marketing materials, retailer records, and historical product samples.
The purpose is not simply to create more paperwork.
If ownership is later challenged, these records can help demonstrate which company adopted and controlled the brand and how the manufacturer’s activities fit into that relationship.
Current USPTO rules generally accept an applicant’s verified ownership representation unless the record clearly contradicts it.
Maintaining coherent records helps avoid creating that contradiction.
What Are the Biggest Trademark Mistakes in Private-Label Manufacturing?
One major mistake is allowing the wrong party to file the trademark application.
Another is assuming the factory automatically owns the brand because it physically applies the mark.
The reverse assumption can also cause problems. A distributor cannot simply declare itself the trademark owner when it is actually selling another manufacturer’s established brand.
Businesses may also fail to separate trademark ownership from formulas, packaging artwork, molds, product specifications, and other intellectual property.
Another common issue is ignoring what happens when the manufacturing relationship ends.
A private-label agreement should address ownership during the relationship and after it.
How Should a Consumer Brand Protect Its Trademark in a Private-Label Relationship?
The strongest strategy begins before manufacturing starts.
The parties should identify who owns the customer-facing brand and determine whether the proposed trademark is available through appropriate clearance.
The manufacturing agreement should expressly address trademark ownership and give the manufacturer only the permission necessary to perform authorized production.
Quality standards and approval rights should reflect the actual product and support the brand owner’s control.
The parties should separately address formulas, recipes, packaging artwork, photographs, product designs, tooling, confidential information, and other intellectual property rather than assuming ownership of the trademark resolves those questions.
The correct legal owner should file any federal trademark application.
If an intent-to-use application is involved, the applicant should also consider the statutory limitations on transferring that application before qualifying use has been established.
Finally, the agreement should provide a clear exit path addressing leftover inventory, branded packaging, manufacturing files, intellectual property, and use of the trademark after termination.
Private-label manufacturing can allow a brand to build a nationwide consumer business without owning a factory. The trademark structure should make that separation clear.
Cohn Legal, PLLC advises consumer product companies, private-label brands, manufacturers, startups, and CPG businesses on trademark ownership, federal registration, manufacturing and licensing relationships, portfolio development, product expansion, and enforcement. Cohn Legal’s existing private-label guidance likewise emphasizes that the physical manufacturer does not automatically own the customer-facing trademark.
Primary Sources and Authorities
TMEP § 1201 governs ownership of marks for purposes of federal registration. Current USPTO guidance provides that a Section 1(a) application must be filed by the trademark owner and that Section 1(b) applications must be filed by the party possessing the requisite bona fide intention to use the trademark.
TMEP § 1201.05 specifically addresses contract manufacturing. It provides that when an applicant contracts with another party to produce goods and instructs that party to apply the applicant’s trademark, the manufacturer’s application of the mark is treated as the equivalent of the applicant placing the mark on the goods itself.
TMEP § 1201.06(a) provides that a distributor or importer does not acquire ownership of a manufacturer’s trademark merely by moving the manufacturer’s goods in commerce. The provision also addresses circumstances in which a U.S. importer or distributor may establish ownership of a foreign manufacturer’s mark through appropriate documentation.
15 U.S.C. § 1055 provides that legitimate use by related companies may inure to the benefit of the trademark owner and that controlled first use can benefit the applicant or registrant.
15 U.S.C. § 1127 defines a related company as a party whose use of the trademark is controlled by the owner with respect to the nature and quality of the goods or services. The statute also defines trademark use on goods for federal trademark purposes.
TMEP § 1201.02(b) states that an application filed by the wrong owner, or by a party lacking the required bona fide intention to use the mark, is generally void and cannot simply be corrected through amendment or assignment.
15 U.S.C. § 1060 governs trademark assignments and requires assignments to transfer the associated goodwill. It also restricts assignment of Section 1(b) intent-to-use applications before the required allegation of use, except in the statutory successor-to-business circumstances.
Author: Abraham Cohn, U.S. trademark attorney and founder of Cohn Legal, PLLC. Cohn Legal advises consumer product companies, private-label brands, CPG businesses, startups, manufacturers, and growing companies on trademark ownership, federal registration, manufacturing and licensing relationships, portfolio development, TTAB proceedings, and enforcement.