Professional vocabulary, trademark filings and why the industry should pay attention

By Matthew C. Parker
Independent Security Advisors | EPTraining.us

Executive protection had a professional vocabulary decades before today’s standards organizations existed. Matthew Parker examines trademark filings involving familiar industry terms and asks where brand protection ends and control of professional language begins.

Executive protection had a vocabulary long before today’s standards organizations existed. Executive protection, executive protection specialist, personal protection specialist, executive protection agent, protective detail, close protection, protective intelligence, advance work, principal, threat assessment, risk assessment and protective operations are not made-up marketing terms. They are words practitioners, government agencies, law-enforcement organizations, state regulators, military personnel, employers and training programs have used for years.

That is why I paid attention when I read social media reports and reviewed public trademark records showing that the Board of Executive Protection Professionals filed a series of federal trademark applications in 2024 involving many of those same terms. I do not object to an organization protecting something it actually created. Protect your name, your logo, a unique certification title or an original product. But if the profession was using a term before your organization existed, I think you ought to have a very good reason before trying to put proprietary rights around it. You do not improve executive protection by trying to own its dictionary.

First, Let’s Use the Right Legal Terms

People sometimes describe this issue by saying someone is trying to “copyright words.” That is not legally accurate. The U.S. Copyright Office states that copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans or short phrases. Copyright protects original works of authorship; it does not give someone ownership of an ordinary occupational term because the term appears in a book, course or standard.

Trademark law is different. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office explains that a trademark identifies the source of particular goods or services. A trademark can be a word or phrase, but the right is tied to the way that mark is used to identify source. The USPTO also makes another point worth understanding: a trademark does not give someone ownership of a word in every possible use. Generic terms cannot function as federally registered trademarks for the goods or services they name, and descriptive terms can face limits of their own. In plain English, the real question is whether you are protecting a brand or trying to claim language the profession was already using.

What Did BEPP File?

Public trademark records list a number of applications filed by the Board of Executive Protection Professionals during 2024. They include:

• EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL — Serial No. 98567993;
• CERTIFIED EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL — Serial No. 98600516;
• EXECUTIVE PROTECTION SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98623019;
• EXECUTIVE PROTECTION — Serial No. 98623169;
• PERSONAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98633758;
• PERSONAL SECURITY SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98634913;
• EXECUTIVE PROTECTION AGENT — Serial No. 98634970;
• PROTECTION SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98640016;
• CERTIFIED PROTECTION SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98640062;
• EXECUTIVE SECURITY SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98640126;
• CERTIFIED EXECUTIVE SECURITY SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98642499;
• PROTECTIVE DETAIL SPECIALIST — Serial No. 98642545;
• CLOSE PROTECTION OFFICER — Serial No. 98644664; and
• CLOSE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL — Serial No. 98660487.

BEPP has also filed applications involving its own organizational and conference names, and I have no issue with an organization protecting a distinctive name or event it created.

The concern is the occupational and professional language in the list above. We also need to be precise about status: an application is not the same thing as a registered trademark. Public records show, for example, that the applications for EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL and CERTIFIED EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL were expressly abandoned in 2025. That is why this discussion should stay grounded in actual filings, actual status and actual legal rights rather than social-media claims.

What Are You Trying to Accomplish?

This is where I think the discussion moves beyond trademark law. If you want the profession to trust your standards, your certification and your judgment, then the profession has every right to ask why you are filing for terms it was already using. Is the goal to protect a genuinely unique certification or stop someone from falsely claiming a credential? If so, say that clearly. Or is the goal to gain control over occupational titles, training language, marketing language or other terms that government agencies, regulators, instructors and practitioners have used for years?

I am not claiming to know an undisclosed motive. I am saying the question is legitimate, and the person or organization filing the applications should be prepared to answer it.

There is a difference between what you can legally attempt and what you should do when you are asking an entire profession to trust your judgment. If you want a leadership role in setting standards, people are entitled to examine your decisions. Saying, “The law lets us file for it,” is not enough. What problem are you solving? Who benefits? What ordinary uses remain open to everyone? What do you intend to stop other people from doing? Those answers tell me far more about the purpose of the filing than the word “trademark” does.

“Executive Protection” Did Not Begin in 2024

The historical record is not close. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Criminal Justice Reference Service catalog includes an article titled Executive Protection from 1974. A 1982 Department of Justice bibliography on executive protection listed more than 100 works, most from the late 1970s and early 1980s. By 1988, criminal-justice literature was discussing Executive Protection Specialists in private security and the growing field of executive-protection education and training. In 1998, the Department of Justice cataloged the Executive Protection Professional’s Manual, which discussed the Executive Protection Professional field and the qualifications expected of practitioners.

Those records do not decide a trademark case, but they establish something much simpler: the terminology was already here. A standards organization can improve a definition, make a term more precise for use inside a standard, create a new certification name or build a new product around old professional concepts. What it cannot honestly do is rewrite the history of where the profession’s language came from.

“Personal Protection Specialist” Is Even Harder to Ignore

The term Personal Protection Specialist is particularly important because it is not simply wording used by private training companies. Virginia law defines a personal protection specialist as an individual who provides close protection from bodily harm to another person. Virginia DCJS maintains a Personal Protection Specialist registration category and requires entry-level training, practical exercises and a written examination. The history goes back decades: Virginia regulatory records show legislation requiring the regulation of personal protection specialists beginning July 1, 1995.

BEPP filed a federal trademark application for PERSONAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST in July 2024. I am not telling the USPTO how to decide that application; that is not my role. I am asking a question anyone in this profession should understand: if a state has used a term as the name of a regulated protective-services occupation for nearly thirty years, why does a private organization need a trademark claim involving the same words? That question deserves an answer.

Government Still Uses the Same Language

The terminology is not only historical. The federal government currently uses Executive Protection Agent as an occupational title. A 2026 USAJOBS announcement from the U.S. Department of Agriculture describes an Executive Protection Agent assigned to an executive protective operations division. Federal agencies have also used titles such as Executive Protection Special Agent. The Department of Energy has an Office of Executive Protection, and terms such as protective detail and protective intelligence have long histories inside federal protective work.

Again, none of that answers every legal question surrounding a trademark application. It does answer the historical question: these terms did not originate with today’s private standards organizations.

A Trademark Is Not Ownership of the Profession

This point needs to be made clearly because people can see a trademark application and assume too much. A filing does not mean a practitioner suddenly cannot use ordinary professional language, that a training provider automatically has to rename a course or that an employer loses the ability to use a familiar job title. The actual legal scope depends on the specific mark, the goods or services, the status of the filing and how the mark is used.

But the practical effect of broad filings can still matter. Most executive protection practitioners are not trademark lawyers, and most small training companies do not have intellectual-property counsel reviewing every course title. If they see applications for familiar occupational language, some will wonder whether they are allowed to keep using terms they have used for years. That kind of uncertainty does not help the profession.

Standards Can Define a Term Without Trying to Control It

A standards document needs definitions, and I have no problem with that. A standard can say, For purposes of this document, “protective advance” means… Good. Now everyone reading that document knows what the writer means. That is very different from suggesting that because you defined the term, you somehow created the term or own the professional use of it.

I have been around training and standards long enough to know the difference between defining language and controlling language. Standards should define what they mean and reduce confusion. They should not create new confusion about who gets to use the profession’s ordinary words.

Why Training Providers and New Professionals Should Care

Training depends on common language. An instructor has to teach threat assessment, protective intelligence, advance work, route planning, site security, protective details, emergency procedures and principal movement using words the student is going to encounter on the job. Law-enforcement students bring one set of terms, military students another, private-sector practitioners may use different wording, and state law may use a formal occupational title. The job of a good standard is to reduce unnecessary confusion among those groups.

If ordinary occupational language starts carrying questions about private ownership, we are moving in the wrong direction. A training provider should not have to wonder whether a familiar course title creates a trademark problem. A practitioner should not have to wonder whether a job title on a résumé implies a private certification. An employer should not have to wonder whether a common occupational title now belongs to somebody else. That is fragmentation, not standardization.

The same problem is even more obvious for someone entering executive protection for the first time. One employer uses Executive Protection Agent, another uses Executive Protection Specialist, Virginia uses Personal Protection Specialist, international practitioners commonly use close-protection terminology and federal agencies use their own combinations of executive-protection and special-agent titles.

Now put trademark applications next to several of those same phrases. Is that a job title, a state registration, a certification or a trademark? Does using the term mean affiliation with a private organization? Can an employer still use the title? An organization seeking rights involving ordinary professional terminology should explain what it is trying to accomplish and what it is not trying to control.

Protect the Brand, Not the Profession’s Dictionary

I do not object to intellectual-property protection where it makes sense. If you created a distinctive organization name, protect it. If you created a unique logo, protect it. If you developed a specific certification name that identifies your credential, protect it. But there is a difference between protecting what you built and putting a fence around words everyone else was already using.

Protect what you created. Leave the profession’s ordinary language alone. That is not an anti-business position; it is basic fairness. A standards organization should be able to look at language used for decades by government agencies, regulators, employers, instructors and practitioners and recognize that those words belong to a history larger than the organization itself. If the organization still believes it needs proprietary rights involving those terms, then explain why. That is where judgment and intent matter.

This Is Part of the Larger Standards Question

The trademark issue is not separate from the rest of this series. Article 3 asked whether executive protection really needs one private organization to own the standards answer. Article 4 asked what happens when standards become expensive and additional certification or provider systems start growing around them. Now we have to ask about the language.

If one organization writes the standard, sells the standard, defines the terminology, seeks trademark rights involving occupational terms, develops certification and creates requirements for training providers, then the profession has every right to ask where the limits are. Who sets the rule? Who interprets it? Who sells the product? Who tests the person? Who decides whether another training provider complies? Who benefits when more of the system is controlled by one organization? I do not need to accuse anyone of a hidden motive to ask those questions. No private organization should be beyond scrutiny simply because it says it is acting in the name of standards.

EPTraining.us & ISA’s Position

ISA supports common terminology when it makes training and operations clearer. We support standards that define their terms, legitimate trademarks and the protection of real brands and real credentials. What we do not support is turning ordinary professional language into another point of private control. The trademark record should be discussed accurately: an application is not a registration, a trademark does not give someone ownership of a word in every context, generic terms cannot function as trademarks for the goods or services they name, descriptive terms can face limits, and each filing has to be judged on its own facts.

But after the legal explanation, I still come back to the same practical question: why would a standards organization need proprietary rights involving words the profession was already using? If the answer is to protect a unique certification, explain that.

If the answer is to stop false claims of a credential, explain that. If ordinary use by practitioners, employers, regulators and training organizations is not intended to be restricted, say that plainly. But if the goal is to control who can use established occupational language, market training under familiar terms or describe work using titles that existed long before the organization, then I have a problem with it. That is not how I believe a standards organization should treat the profession it says it wants to improve.

Standards should codify knowledge, not create ownership of the profession. They should unify the profession, not fragment it. Standards should serve the profession—not become the profession.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can someone copyright the words “executive protection”?

No. The U.S. Copyright Office states that copyright does not protect names, titles, slogans or short phrases. Copyright and trademark are different forms of intellectual property.

Can “executive protection” be trademarked?

A word or phrase can be the subject of a trademark application when it is claimed as a source identifier for specified goods or services, but not every application is registrable. USPTO guidance states that generic terms cannot function as federally registered trademarks for the goods or services they name, and descriptive terms can face additional limitations.

Did BEPP file a trademark application for “Executive Protection”?

Yes. Public trademark records list a BEPP application for EXECUTIVE PROTECTION, Serial No. 98623169, filed June 27, 2024 for executive-protection security services. An application should not be confused with a general right to control the phrase in every professional context.

What other executive protection terms has BEPP filed applications for?

Public records list applications involving EXECUTIVE PROTECTION SPECIALIST, PERSONAL PROTECTION SPECIALIST, EXECUTIVE PROTECTION AGENT, PROTECTION SPECIALIST, EXECUTIVE SECURITY SPECIALIST, PROTECTIVE DETAIL SPECIALIST, CLOSE PROTECTION OFFICER, CLOSE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL and other related phrases. The status and legal scope of each filing must be considered separately.

Did BEPP receive trademarks for every phrase it filed?

No. Filing an application does not guarantee registration. Public records show that the applications for EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL and CERTIFIED EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL were expressly abandoned in 2025.

Was “Personal Protection Specialist” used before BEPP’s 2024 filing?

Yes. Virginia regulatory records show that the Commonwealth required regulation of personal protection specialists beginning in 1995. The term remains a defined occupational and registration category in Virginia law and DCJS regulations.

Why does ISA question the intent behind these filings?

Because a standards organization is asking the profession to trust its judgment and accept its role in defining professional expectations. When the same organization seeks rights involving longstanding occupational language, it is fair to ask what problem the filing is intended to solve, what conduct it is intended to prevent and whether ordinary professional use will remain unrestricted.

Does ISA claim to know BEPP’s motive?

No. ISA is not claiming knowledge of an undisclosed motive. ISA is saying that the purpose, scope and expected effect of the filings are legitimate subjects for professional scrutiny.

Does a trademark mean an organization owns a word?

Not in every context. The USPTO explains that trademark rights are tied to specified goods or services and to the mark’s role in identifying source.

Can a standards organization define executive protection terminology?

Yes. Standards routinely define terms for use within a document. ISA’s concern is not with clear definitions. The concern is whether longstanding professional vocabulary becomes unnecessarily associated with private control.

Related ISA Resources

• Two Executive Protection Standards: The Question Joe LaSorsa Asked
• If Standards Matter, Who Gets to Read Them?
• Executive Protection Training Standards: A National Priority?
• Executive Protection Training Programs: Curriculum and Standards of Training
• Executive Protection Training Standards & Program Evaluation

External Reference Links

• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — What Is a Trademark?
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Strong, Descriptive and Generic Trademarks
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Trademark Scope of Protection
• U.S. Copyright Office — Copyright Protection FAQ
• Public Trademark Records — Board of Executive Protection Professionals Filings
• Trademark Record — EXECUTIVE PROTECTION, Serial No. 98623169
• Trademark Record — EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL, Serial No. 98567993
• Trademark Record — CERTIFIED EXECUTIVE PROTECTION PROFESSIONAL, Serial No. 98600516
• Virginia Code — Personal Protection Specialist Definition
• Virginia Register — Personal Protection Specialist Regulation History
• Virginia DCJS — Personal Protection Specialist
• U.S. Department of Justice Archive — Executive Protection, 1974
• U.S. Department of Justice Archive — Executive Protection Bibliography, 1982
• U.S. Department of Justice Archive — Executive Protection Specialists, 1988
• U.S. Department of Justice Archive — Executive Protection Professional’s Manual, 1998
• National Institute of Justice — Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment, 2000
• USAJOBS — Executive Protection Agent

About the Author

Matthew C. Parker is CEO of Independent Security Advisors LLC and Director of Training Operations for EPTraining.us. U.S. Army retired, combat veteran, Master Instructor, and protective-services practitioner, his assignments included training-department management at the U.S. Army Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear School, recognition as Instructor of the Cycle and Instructor of the Year, and instructor duties with Army ROTC at Virginia Tech. He has more than three decades of military, government, executive-protection, training, and advisory experience, including international security and training in Iraq and Ukraine.

For more than a decade, Parker has focused on a question central to the professionalization of executive protection: How do we turn standards into measurable performance? Through ISA and EPTraining.us, he has developed and evaluated protective-services training against regulatory requirements, external standards, operational practice, and demonstrated competency. His position is simple: training prepares the professional; standards define expectations; performance demonstrates competence.