Trademark
& IP Blog
Practical insights on trademarks, licensing, enforcement, and brand strategy for growing businesses and creators.
Published by Randi Leath, Esq.
New Filings Suggest Fight to Own “Tendernism” May Just Be Beginning
The internet may think the Tendernism trademark fight is over, but the legal reality is more complicated. New trademark filings, assignment issues, and the fallout involving Destination Smokehouse suggest the dispute over who owns the mark is still unfolding.
Published: March 9, 2026
Over the past several months, the internet has rallied behind Walter Johnson, better known online as “Mr. Tendernism.”
Johnson rose to viral fame through videos filmed at Destination Smokehouse, a barbecue restaurant in Marietta, California. In the clips, Johnson enthusiastically demonstrates the restaurant’s barbecue, often pulling apart ribs while declaring they have reached “Tendernism.”
According to Johnson, Tendernism refers to meat so tender you don’t even need teeth to eat it.
The videos quickly spread across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. As they did, the phrase “Tendernism” became inseparable from Johnson himself.
But as the phrase went viral, something else happened.
Multiple trademark applications for TENDERNISM were filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and a battle for ownership of the mark began.
Recently, many people online have been celebrating what they believe is a major victory for Johnson after reports surfaced that an attorney who filed an earlier trademark application assigned that application to him.
But, just as it seemed like the Tendernism trademark dispute might be settling down, new developments suggest the story may be far from over.
A Potential Roadblock: The Intent-to-Use Assignment Issue
As the internet has celebrated Johnson’s “win,” one key point of trademark law has gotten overlooked. The application that was reportedly assigned to Johnson was filed as an intent-to-use trademark application.
Intent-to-use applications allow someone to reserve a filing date for a mark they intend to use in the future.
But they come with an important limitation.
Under U.S. trademark law, an intent-to-use application cannot be assigned to another party before the applicant files a Statement of Use, unless the transfer occurs as part of the sale of the underlying business associated with the mark.
The rule exists for a reason.
Trademark law does not allow people to simply “park” on trademarks the way people often park on popular domain names waiting until someone comes along willing to pay a pretty penny to own it.
Applicants must have a legitimate intention to use the mark they’ve applied for, and the law restricts transfers to prevent people from filing applications solely to hold the mark for someone else or to force someone who actually wants to use it to buy it off of them.
That rule raises an interesting question in this situation.
We know the original applications were filed by attorney Kenneth L. Harris. It appears that Harris has reportedly agreed to assign to Walter Johnson.
What remains unclear is why the applications were filed in Harris’s name in the first place.
If Harris intended to develop or use the TENDERNISM brand himself, that would be consistent with how intent-to-use applications are designed to work.
But if the applications were filed solely to hold the mark for Johnson until it could be transferred, as some reports have implied , that could potentially raise issues under the rules governing intent-to-use applications.
Without knowing the details of the arrangement, it is impossible to draw conclusions.
But it does illustrate another important truth about trademarks:
Applications alone do not determine ownership, and the path from filing to enforceable trademark rights is rarely as simple as it appears online.
New Trademark Filings Enter the Picture
While the assignment news spread online, three additional trademark filings quietly appeared at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
On February 22, 2026, an application for MR TENDERNISM was filed by Connie Simmons of Jonesboro, Georgia covering business consulting and intellectual property licensing services.
Then, on March 8, 2026, two additional applications were filed by TreImage LLC, a branding and licensing consultancy based in Long Beach, California.
Those filings include:
TENDERNISM covering grills, barbecue equipment, and various meat and food products.
MR. TENDERNISM covering seasonings, sauces, and barbecue rubs.
All three of these filings were submitted on an intent-to-use basis and are currently awaiting examination.
Little is known of Connie Simmons.
TreImage is a marketing and licensing consultancy that has reportedly worked with well-known figures such as Soulja Boy, Ray Lewis, Royalty Brown, Warren G, Master P, and Ja Rule.
Perhaps Mr. Tendernism has now joined their roster.
Or…perhaps not.
At this stage, it is not clear whether Connie Simmons or TreImage LLC have any connection to Walter Johnson.
But even if these filings were made with Johnson’s involvement, the approach is quite curious.
None of the new applications list Johnson himself as the owner.
A detail that matters more than you think.
Trademark ownership must reflect who actually controls the brand in the marketplace. Identifying the correct owner at the time of filing is critical, because listing the wrong owner can weaken the application, create enforcement problems, and in some cases jeopardize the validity of the trademark altogether.
If the goal is for Walter Johnson to build and control the Tendernism brand, you would expect to see Johnson listed as the applicant.
Instead, the current filings list third parties as the owners, which could allude to issues down the road about who actually controls the brand and the validity of the pending applications.
There is also another wrinkle.
Because these applications were filed on an intent-to-use basis, the listed applicants must have a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce themselves. If the applications were filed by third parties primarily to hold the mark for someone else, they could face some of the same complications that appear to be arising with the earlier Kenneth Harris application.
Whether these filings reflect a coordinated strategy involving Walter Johnson or the emergence of additional competition seeking their own stake in the mark remains to be seen.
Either way, it appears the Tendernism trademark saga may still have several chapters left to play out.
Destination Smokehouse: A Lesson in the Power of Public Opinion
While the legal questions surrounding the Tendernism trademark continue to evolve, Destination Smokehouse, one of the original parties involved in the dispute and the strongest challenger to Johnson’s rights, appears to have thrown in the towel after its public falling out with Johnson.
In applications filed in December 2025 and January 2026, Destination Smokehouse claimed it owned the trademark based on first use in April 2024.
Following a wave of backlash that erupted online, the phrase “Tendernism” appears to have largely disappeared from the restaurant’s public-facing materials. The term no longer appears on the restaurant’s website, and recent social media posts do not appear to prominently feature the phrase that once helped propel the restaurant to viral fame.
The fallout has reportedly been significant. The restaurant has lost hundreds of thousands of followers across social media platforms, and online reports suggest that customer traffic at its locations has dropped sharply as calls for boycotts spread across TikTok and other platforms.
And that highlights on of the most important lessons from the Tendernism dispute.
Sometimes the most important trademark question is not:
“Who can win the legal fight?”
But rather:
“What happens to the brand if you do?”
Trademarks exist at the intersection of law, branding, and public perception.
Here, while the company’s applications remain pending with the USPTO, in the court of public opinion, the verdict is already in.
To millions of viewers online:
Tendernism is Walter Johnson.
The phrase is inseparable from the personality who made it famous.
And that reality should serve as a warning to anyone else considering staking a claim to the mark.
Because even if the law might offer a path to claim the rights, the public has already decided who truly owns the brand, and they’re firmly in his corner.
TL;DR
The viral “Tendernism” phrase made famous by barbecue pitmaster Walter “Mr. Tendernism” Johnson has sparked a growing trademark battle. While many online believe Johnson now owns the mark after an application was reportedly assigned to him, the situation is more complicated. Questions about intent-to-use trademark assignments, new trademark filings by other parties, and the public backlash against Destination Smokehouse suggest the Tendernism trademark saga may still have several chapters left to play out.
Share this article on:
DISCLAIMER: Information on this site is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney–client relationship is formed unless and until a written retainer agreement is executed. The views and opinions expressed by Randi Leath in this blog are her own. This blog is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Chartwell. See full disclaimer
Understanding Trademark Ownership: Who is the Proper Owner for Your Trademark Application?
Properly identifying the owner of a trademark is paramount when filing a trademark application. The owner is the individual or company that controls the nature and quality of the goods or services associated with the brand. Failing to accurately designate the owner can lead to a range of complications, including application rejections, void registrations, and limited enforcement rights
Published: June 22, 2023
Starting a new business venture is an exciting time filled with endless possibilities. As an entrepreneur, you invest time, effort, and creativity into developing your brand identity. One essential aspect of protecting your brand is securing a trademark registration. But here's a question that often confuses many: who should be listed as the owner of your trademark application? Should it be you as an individual or your business entity? In this blog post, we'll guide you through the process of understanding trademark ownership and help you determine who you should name as the owner of your trademark when it's time to fill out your trademark application. So, let's dive in!
Understanding Trademark Ownership
Trademark ownership is not solely about having the legal rights to use a particular symbol, word, or design. It also encompasses the responsibility of maintaining and preserving the reputation and goodwill associated with the brand. This includes ensuring that the goods or services offered under the trademark consistently meet a certain level of quality and adhere to the brand's standards.
When it comes to controlling the nature and quality of goods and services, a trademark owner has a vital role to play. This control ensures that consumers associate the trademark with a consistent level of quality, reliability, and satisfaction. By maintaining control over the nature and quality, a trademark owner can protect the reputation and distinctiveness of their brand in the marketplace.
An important exception to the ownership rule applies to intent-to-use (ITU) applications. With an ITU application, you can reserve rights to a mark you intend to use in the future. While you are not yet the actual owner at the time of filing, the intent to use the mark is a prerequisite for obtaining registration. However, it is crucial to ensure that the listed owner has a bona fide intent to use the mark and has a reasonable basis for making such a claim. While an ITU application cannot be voided
It's worth noting that even with an ITU application, the actual owner must be determined before the mark registers. Failure to do so may result in complications, including potential cancellation of the registration or challenges in enforcing the mark.
Determining the Proper Owner of a Trademark
When it comes to trademark ownership, the key factor is the entity or individual who controls the nature and quality of the goods or services associated with the brand. This ownership extends beyond mere legal ownership to the party responsible for the development, manufacturing, marketing, and overall reputation of the brand. Identifying the correct owner is crucial to avoid potential delays, fees, cancellations, and enforceability issues.
Determining when it is appropriate to file a trademark application under an individual's name versus a business entity depends on various factors, including the structure of your business and your long-term goals.
Let's explore a few common scenarios:
When to File Under an Individual's Name:
Sole Proprietorship or Freelancing:
If you're running your business as a sole proprietorship or working as a freelancer, it's common practice to file the trademark application under your individual name. As the sole proprietor, you maintain full control over the nature and quality of the goods and services associated with your brand. This ownership structure is suitable for small businesses, freelancers, or independent consultants who operate without a separate legal entity.
Personal Identity Tied to the Brand:
If your business heavily relies on your personal identity, expertise, or reputation, it may be appropriate to file the trademark application under your name. This is particularly relevant if you anticipate potential separation from the business or rebranding in the future.
Filing an Intent-to-Use application:
If you are preparing to launch a new business and want to reserve your trademark early on, but have not yet decided on what type of business entity is right for you, filing your ITU application under your individual name may be appropriate. It is important to note however, that you cannot assign an ITU application to a new owner. This may create problems down the road when you have to show proof of use or if someone challenges your bonafide intent to use the mark.
When to File Under a Business Entity:
Operating as a Corporation or LLC:
When your business operates as a separate legal entity, such as a corporation or limited liability company (LLC), it is typically advisable to file the trademark application under the business entity's name. In this scenario, the entity itself has control over the goods and services associated with the mark. This is because the law treats business entities as their own individual person, so ultimately it will be the business that is providing the goods or services, not you individually. This ownership structure provides added protection and flexibility, especially in cases where multiple individuals are involved in managing the business and ensures continuity even if there are changes in personnel.
Filing an Intent-to-Use application:
If you’ve already formed a business entity for your new endeavor, it is advisable to name the owner of the trademark as the business.
Future Growth and Expansion:
If you have ambitious plans for your business, such as scaling operations, attracting investors, or even considering a potential sale in the future, filing the trademark application under the business entity is often recommended. This aligns your trademark strategy with your long-term goals, facilitating a smoother transition as your business evolves.
Why Getting It Right Matters
Avoiding Unnecessary Delays and Fees:
By accurately identifying the trademark owner, you can prevent unnecessary delays and fees in the application process. Importantly, an application cannot be amended to name a different person or entity as the correct application. Any discrepancies or inconsistencies regarding the owner's identity can trigger additional correspondence with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and potentially even resubmission of the application, resulting in delays and increased costs at best.
Preventing Application Voidance:
Lack of ownership: If the USPTO finds the application was filed under the wrong owner, the application may be voided, requiring resubmission under the proper owner. This could be a costly mistake for brands resulting in a narrowing or complete loss of trademark rights. Trademark rights are often determined based on the principle of priority, which means that the first person or entity to use a mark in commerce or file a valid application is granted certain rights. If a trademark application is voided, the applicant may lose their priority status. This can allow others who file valid applications or use the mark in commerce to gain superior rights, potentially leading to conflicts and challenges in asserting ownership over the mark.
Lack of Genuine Intent: While a ITU application cannot be voided for listing the wrong owner, it can be challenged for lack of genuine intent. Filing an ITU application requires a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. If the wrong owner is listed, it may call into question the genuine intent of the listed owner to use the mark. This can lead to challenges during the examination process, as the USPTO may question whether the listed owner has a legitimate intention to use the mark. Like a voided application, challenges to intent can result in unnecessary expenses, time and most importantly, a loss in trademark rights. This is an even more severe outcome for ITU applicants, who have filed before actual use, because they have no residual common law trademark rights to rely on.
Incomplete Assignment of Rights:
If the wrong owner is listed, it may result in an incomplete assignment of rights. This means that the true owner of the mark may not have the legal rights necessary to enforce and protect the mark against infringers. This can weaken the overall protection of the trademark.
Ensuring Enforceability and Validity of Trademark:
If the wrong owner is listed, the true owner may face challenges when enforcing their trademark rights against infringers. They may encounter difficulties in initiating legal actions, sending cease-and-desist letters, or pursuing damages for trademark infringement. Additionally, If the wrong owner is listed on the trademark application, it may give rise to a petition to cancel filed by a third party asserting that the listed owner does not have the proper standing or ownership rights. This can result in legal proceedings to determine the rightful owner of the mark, leading to significant costs, time, and uncertainty. If a petition to cancel is successful, the registration of the trademark may be deemed invalid. This means that the mark may lose its legal protection, and the listed owner may lose the exclusive rights associated with the mark. It can have severe consequences for the brand, including the loss of market recognition and the ability to prevent others from using a similar mark. This can hamper the ability to protect the brand and maintain its distinctiveness in the marketplace. In some instances, the brand may be required to undergo a rebranding process, which can be costly and time-consuming and significantly impact the company’s market share.
Avoiding Ownership Disputes:
Listing the wrong owner can lead to ownership disputes between individuals or entities claiming ownership rights. This can result in costly and time-consuming legal proceedings to determine the rightful owner of the mark. Ownership disputes can cause significant disruptions to business operations and damage the brand's reputation.
Ensuring Proper Trademark Portfolio Management Issues:
Incorrectly listing the owner can create complications when managing a trademark portfolio. This includes tasks such as renewals, recordation of changes, and portfolio audits. It can lead to confusion, inaccurate records, and difficulties in maintaining an organized and updated portfolio.
License and Assignment Limitations:
If the listed owner is not the true owner, any licenses or assignments related to the mark may be deemed invalid or unenforceable. This can create challenges when entering into licensing agreements, franchising arrangements, or transferring ownership of the mark to another party. It may require additional legal steps and potential renegotiations to rectify the situation.
Final Thoughts
Understanding the importance of proper trademark ownership is key to a successful trademark registration process. By correctly identifying the owner on the application, you can avoid unnecessary delays, fees, and potential complications. Whether you are an individual entrepreneur or operating under a company structure, ensure that the proper owner is listed to protect your rights, maintain brand integrity, and lay a solid foundation for your business's success.
Remember, when in doubt, it's always wise to seek legal guidance from a qualified intellectual property attorney who can provide personalized advice based on your specific circumstances. If you have any questions or need guidance regarding trademark ownership or the application process, we offer a free consultation to help you get started.
Good luck with your trademark application and the exciting journey ahead!
TL;DR
When filing a trademark application, it's important to determine the proper owner. The owner is responsible for maintaining the reputation and quality associated with the brand. If you're a sole proprietor or freelancer, it's common to file under your individual name. If your business is a separate legal entity like a corporation or LLC, file under the entity's name for added protection. Filing an intent-to-use application requires a bonafide intent to use the mark. Choosing the wrong owner can lead to delays, fees, voidance of the application, challenges to intent, incomplete rights assignment, and difficulties enforcing the mark. If you have questions about trademark ownership, contact us today for a free consultation.
Share this article on:
DISCLAIMER: Information on this site is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney–client relationship is formed unless and until a written retainer agreement is executed. The views and opinions expressed by Randi Leath in this blog are her own. This blog is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Chartwell. See full disclaimer
First Use is written by Randi Leath, a trademark and intellectual property attorney who advises businesses, entrepreneurs, and creatives on on building, protecting, and using their brands.
Her practice focuses on trademarks, licensing, enforcement, and brand strategy, with an emphasis on providing practical, business-minded guidance tailored to each client’s goals.