Authorized Use of Trump Likeness and Name Used By Jared Craig and Veterans for America First - VFAF Trademark State Chapters

Layman’s Explanation RE: Butch Conz, Eileen Conz, Margaret Keenum Ackiss AKA Margo  - North Carolina VFAF Impersonation and false talking points: 

First, note that during the presidential campaign, the President’s legal team explicitly authorized fundraising in Donald Trump’s name in exchange for a 5% contribution to the campaign. Therefore, any claim by Conz that such fundraising was improper is demonstrably false, particularly given that no fundraising actually occurred by L-Strategies at anytime.

  
Next, the state chapter contractual agreement Conz violated:

1. The Contract and Trademark Timing

   • On December 7, 2023, Butch Conz signed a contract with L-Strategies/Jared Craig to run a VFAF state chapter.

   • At the time he signed, the trademark was live with the USPTO:

     1. Veterans for America First (Serial No. 97690169) Abandoned January 5, 2024: 
        Link:https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=97690169&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=documentSearch

   • This means the mark was officially filed and pending, giving full notice that the name was claimed.

   • Any claim now that there were no trademark at the time is false—the mark was live, and signing a contract using it was fully legitimate.

2. Conz Violated the Contract

   • Immediately after signing, Conz cloned the VFAF website and blocked auditing (access), which directly breaches the contract terms.

   • His current argument that he was “defrauded” because there were no trademarks ignores the fact that the mark was live and active when he signed.

3. North Carolina Filings Don’t Help Him

   • Conz later filed documents in NC SOS and other states, claiming he is the “legitimate” VFAF.

   • These filings do not override the established use of VFAF since 2015.

   • Filing a business name in a state does not create federal trademark rights or retroactive legitimacy over an organization that has been operating under the name for years.

   • In short: Craigs’ VFAF is the original, legitimate entity, and Conz’s state filings cannot change that fact.

Bottom Line: Conz’s story is a false talking point. He broke the contract, and the trademark was live when he signed. Any claims about lack of a trademark are factually incorrect. His state filings don’t establish legitimacy over the original VFAF.

---

Legal Explanation:

 

1. Trademark Status and Good Faith Use

   • USPTO records show the Veterans for America First (97690169) mark was live when Conz signed the contract (TSDR confirms live status).

   • According to federal trademark law:

     • A pending trademark application gives constructive notice of claim to the mark (15 U.S.C. §1072).

     • Contracts executed while a mark is live are presumed valid and in good faith.

   • Conz cannot claim he was defrauded because a live trademark existed when he agreed to operate a state chapter.

2. Breach of Contract

   • Conz’s cloning of the VFAF website violates the terms of the state chapter contract, which clearly stated access (audit). 

   • Courts recognize unauthorized duplication or diversion of organizational websites as a breach of contractual duties, particularly when it prevents auditing or oversight.

3. State Filings Do Not Confer Federal Rights

   • North Carolina (or other state) business filings do not create federal trademark rights or override prior use.

   • Craigs’ VFAF has established use since 2015, giving common law rights and priority over later filings (see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §§901-902).

   • Conz’s post-contract filings cannot retroactively validate his claim or establish legitimacy over the pre-existing VFAF entity.

4. Legal Implication

   • Any argument by Conz that he was defrauded due to “no trademark” is legally invalid, because:

     1. The trademark was live at contract signing.

     2. He breached the contract immediately by cloning the website.

     3. State filings cannot supersede federal or prior common law rights.

   • Conz is attempting to use a false legal narrative to justify or cover up his contractual and IP violations.