Dr. Ashley Bryant built software to help therapists manage their practices. DoorDash, a $72 billion food delivery company represented by one of the country’s largest IP law firms, tried to stop her from using the name LeadDash. She fought back without a lawyer. She won.
Bryant holds a PhD, is a licensed professional counselor based in Edmond, Oklahoma, and has spent 18 years in mental health. Beyond her clinical practice at Legacy Family Services, she also founded Therapy In Color, a platform connecting people of color with culturally responsive mental health resources. LeadDash, launched in 2023, is an EHR, CRM, and marketing platform built specifically for therapists. It combines electronic health records, client management, a phone system, website tools, and email marketing into a single HIPAA-compliant system. The product has nothing to do with food delivery or courier services. It is practice management software for mental health professionals, and nothing else.
In June 2025, DoorDash filed a Notice of Opposition at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), arguing that LeadDash would confuse consumers who associate the DASH element with DoorDash’s brand ecosystem. The company hired Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton, a firm that manages over 100,000 trademark registrations globally and employs more than 125 trademark attorneys. Bryant had no attorney and no legal training. She represented herself throughout the entire proceeding.
On February 18, 2026, the TTAB dismissed the opposition with prejudice, the strongest possible outcome for the applicant. That phrase means DoorDash cannot refile this challenge, ever. The case is permanently closed, and LeadDash’s trademark application moves forward toward full federal registration.
How a Self-Represented Applicant Won at the TTAB
The TTAB is the administrative tribunal within the USPTO that handles disputes over trademark registrations, including opposition proceedings. When a company files an opposition, it is essentially asking the Board to block an applicant’s registration. To understand how the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board works, the process involves discovery, motions practice, and procedural deadlines that apply equally to both sides regardless of budget.
DoorDash’s legal theory rested on Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits registration of a mark likely to cause consumer confusion with an existing mark. The company pointed to its DOORDASH, DASHPASS, and DASHER marks, arguing that consumers associate DASH broadly with the DoorDash brand. DoorDash also holds registrations for DASHMART and DASHLINK, among others. This is called the “family of marks” doctrine: if a company uses the same element across multiple marks, courts and the TTAB may recognize that element as signaling a common source. DoorDash wanted DASH designated as that kind of source identifier across all industries, not just food delivery.
Bryant’s strategic response predated the opposition itself. Before DoorDash even filed, she had narrowed her service description to specifically cover software for therapists and mental health professionals, a move that would prove decisive. The likelihood of confusion analysis under Section 2(d) does not look only at how similar two marks sound. It weighs the relatedness of the underlying goods and services. Therapy practice management software and food delivery services are not related. Consumers choosing an EHR platform for their counseling practice are not going to confuse it with the app they use to order tacos. DoorDash’s own attorneys had previously accepted the narrowed description in communications, which further undercut their confusion argument.
What ultimately finished the case was procedural. DoorDash missed a Board-ordered discovery conference deadline without seeking an extension or communicating with the Board. The company then offered to withdraw the opposition but failed to follow through on that offer. On the same day, DoorDash filed two contradictory motions, sending conflicting signals about whether it intended to continue the proceeding. The Board was not persuaded by any of it. The TTAB dismissed the case with prejudice, and Bryant’s application moved forward toward full federal registration.
DoorDash’s Pattern of Trademark Enforcement
DoorDash holds 87 trademark registrations and applications with the USPTO, and it actively polices any mark containing the DASH suffix. The company trades on the NYSE under the ticker symbol DASH. This case was not the first time DoorDash had targeted a small business over that word element.
In January 2023, DoorDash filed an opposition against Greenerside Holdings, a cannabis delivery service operating under the name Door Dabz (Opposition No. 91285160). That applicant responded by raising an “unclean hands” defense, essentially accusing DoorDash of trademark bullying for filing oppositions on weak grounds against small businesses. The TTAB struck the defense in a precedential decision in May 2024, ruling that such accusations do not constitute a valid legal defense in opposition proceedings. Precedential TTAB decisions carry weight in future cases, so that ruling set a floor that favored DoorDash’s enforcement posture going into proceedings like Bryant’s.
The broader pattern here is familiar. Large companies with established marks file oppositions against small businesses that use common word elements, even when those elements are ordinary English words that predate the company’s existence. DASH is one of those words. DoorDash has invested heavily in building an identity around it, and the company’s litigation posture reflects that investment. Bryant put it plainly: “Whenever you get something like that from this big billion-dollar company, it’s very jarring.” Most small business owners, facing a notice of opposition from Kilpatrick Townsend, conclude that fighting is not worth it. How startups have fought back against large corporations in trademark disputes shows that capitulation is not the only option, but it takes discipline and preparation.
Bryant did not fold. As Black Enterprise reported, she kept fighting: “The small business is usually the one to walk away, but since I didn’t walk away, I kept fighting. In the end, DoorDash decided they were going to walk away.”
The firm DoorDash hired manages over 100,000 trademark registrations globally, while Bryant had no lawyer at all. That the case ended on procedural failures is not a coincidence. When a large company assumes its opponent will quit before discovery even begins, the attorneys handling the file sometimes deprioritize deadlines. Bryant never gave them the chance to course-correct.
What Small Business Owners Should Take from This
The outcome of this case carries four practical lessons for anyone building a brand.
First: narrow your goods and services description strategically. Bryant did not try to claim broad software rights or general technology services. She defined LeadDash specifically for therapy and mental health applications. A precise description creates legal distance from established marks in other industries, because the confusion analysis weighs what your product actually does against what the opposer’s products do. When I prepare trademark applications for clients in specialized fields, selecting the right description is one of the earliest and most consequential decisions in the filing strategy. Broad descriptions invite broader challenges.
Second: similar-sounding elements do not automatically create confusion. DASH in therapy practice management software does not confuse consumers with DASH in food delivery. The Section 2(d) analysis weighs the relatedness of the goods and services, not just phonetic similarity. Understanding whether you can trademark software names and brands requires understanding that software marks in particular demand precision about what the software actually does. A therapy platform and a logistics platform are not substitutes in the minds of buyers.
Third: procedure applies equally to everyone who appears before the Board, and the TTAB enforces its discovery deadlines, motion requirements, and conference obligations without regard to a party’s size or resources. Missing a Board-ordered deadline without seeking an extension can end your case regardless of how large your legal budget is. DoorDash did not lose because its legal theory was wrong. It lost because its attorneys did not follow the Board’s rules. That is a significant finding, and it says something about what happens when a well-resourced company assumes the other side will cave before procedure matters.
Fourth: being pro se does not mean being unprepared. Bryant described what it actually took: “I had to educate myself on trademark rules and how to file motions. It definitely was a lot of late nights reading motions, filing motions, reading trademark rules.” She filed her responses on time, attended every deadline, and maintained the kind of procedural discipline that DoorDash’s legal team did not. That discipline is what created the conditions for a dismissal with prejudice, the strongest possible outcome in her favor.
Protecting Your Brand Before It Gets Challenged
If you are building a brand in a specialized field, the filing strategy matters from day one. Bryant filed for a specific mark covering specific services, and that precision gave her the legal foundation to defend against a company many times her size. The time to think about how your mark will hold up against a challenge is before you file, not after the opposition lands in your inbox.
I help business owners file trademark applications with the kind of specificity that creates defensible positions. From selecting the right classes and descriptions to monitoring for potential conflicts, the goal is to build a trademark portfolio that can withstand scrutiny from competitors of any size.
If you are developing a brand name for your business, product, or software, contact me for a consultation to discuss your filing strategy. Let’s make sure your trademark is built to last.
