Before you file the application or build the brand,
find out what's actually in your way.

A written attorney opinion that evaluates the legal risk of adopting and registering a specific mark for specific goods or services. It is the analysis a sophisticated brand owner gets before filing at the USPTO or before sinking marketing dollars into a name. It identifies prior third-party uses that could block your application under Lanham Act Section 2(d) or create infringement risk under Section 32, evaluates each potential conflict against the DuPont factors, and grades the overall risk so you can make an informed go / no-go / pivot decision.

A knockout search looks for identical or near-identical marks. It is the right first step but it is not legal advice, and it does not surface phonetic equivalents, translation equivalents, near-misses, design marks with similar literal elements, or common-law users that never made it to the USPTO database. An attorney clearance opinion is broader (USPTO plus state plus common-law plus screen-name and domain sweep) and it applies the DuPont multi-factor confusion test that the TTAB and federal courts actually use. The opinion is also written so you can rely on it for the file.

One mark in up to two Nice classes. The fee includes review of any knockout or clearance materials you already have, an independent USPTO TESS sweep covering literal, phonetic, and translation equivalents, a state and common-law screen across Google, Amazon, social platforms, and domain registrations, DuPont factor analysis on every meaningful hit, a written opinion letter with a risk grade (clear, low, moderate, elevated, or high) and a recommended path (file, narrow the goods, pivot, or coexist), and up to two rounds of follow-up email questions. Comprehensive vendor searches (Corsearch / CompuMark) are not included but can be coordinated separately if the risk grade calls for one.

Yes. The opinion methodology is the same across Nice classes. The DuPont factors and the USPTO Section 2(d) analysis apply identically; what changes is the universe of likely-conflicting prior users in that class. I will run the searches inside the classes you specify (Class 005 for pharmaceutical preparations and dietary supplements, Class 032 for non-alcoholic beverages, and so on) and pull related classes where confusion across class lines is plausible.

Standard turnaround is 3 to 5 business days from receipt of the mark, the goods/services description, and any materials you already have. Rush turnaround (24 to 48 hours) is available for an additional $250.

A reasoned attorney clearance opinion can be relevant evidence of good faith adoption and may support a defense against willful infringement, but a single attorney clearance opinion is not insurance against every possible third-party claim. The opinion is written to identify the risks you can act on, not to guarantee an outcome. If you need a higher-grade comprehensive-search-backed opinion for investor diligence or for a use-in-commerce defense, I can scope that separately.

Often yes, but it depends on who will actually use the mark and control its goodwill in the US. The US applicant must be the entity with a bona fide intent to use the mark in US commerce. Shared owners or a parent-subsidiary relationship do not by themselves make the two companies interchangeable for trademark ownership. Naming the wrong applicant can create a void-ab-initio risk, so this is one of the first things I look at. The clean options are a direct US filing by the US company, an assignment or license between the entities, a Madrid designation through the foreign owner, or a coordinated parallel structure.

It depends on your structure. Madrid Section 66(a) can be efficient for a single foreign owner who wants coverage in several countries, but it keeps ownership with the international registrant and ties the US designation to the home filing for the first five years. A direct US filing lets you name the correct US-using entity and tailor the goods and services to US practice. If the US commercial owner is a different affiliate, or the US identification needs real tailoring, a direct filing is often the better fit. This is a judgment call on your facts.

These are filing bases. Section 1(b) is an intent-to-use application: you file before US use and prove use later with a Statement of Use. Section 44 lets a qualifying applicant rely on a foreign application or registration as a basis, without showing US use to register (though use is still needed to maintain the mark). Section 66(a) is a US designation through the Madrid Protocol, extending an international registration to the US. Which basis fits depends on whether you have used the mark, whether you own a foreign registration, and how you want to own the US rights.

Yes. A Section 1(b) intent-to-use application lets you file based on a bona fide intent to use the mark, which holds your priority while you prepare. You complete registration later by filing a Statement of Use once you are actually using the mark in US commerce, with extensions of time available in the interim. A clean ITU filing can still take many months to allowance and often 18 to 24 months to registration, depending on when use begins.

No. USPTO government fees are separate and are paid upfront at cost. My attorney fees are quoted by milestone (clearance, application per class, office action response, Statement of Use), and the government fees sit on top of those, passed through without markup. The government fee amounts shown on this page are current as of January 2025 and are subject to USPTO change.

An office action is a refusal or requirement raised by the examining attorney, and the work to respond depends entirely on what is raised. A minor requirement is quick; a substantive Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion refusal can require legal argument and evidence. Many applications never receive a substantive office action at all. Quoting it separately, from $850 by complexity, keeps you from paying upfront for work that may never be needed.

For an intent-to-use application, you do not prove use at filing. After the mark clears examination and publication, the USPTO issues a Notice of Allowance, and you then file a Statement of Use once you are actually using the mark in US commerce. Because that can be months after filing and depends on when your real use begins, it is a separate stage with its own attorney fee ($350 per class) and its own USPTO fee.

A dead or abandoned exact mark is usually less blocking than a live registration, and it is often encouraging. It is not a guaranteed green light. A dead record can still reveal marketplace history, prior common-law use, or examiner-risk patterns worth checking, and a live registration on a similar mark in a related class can block you even when your exact mark is dead. The clearance opinion reads the live and dead records together and tells you what actually matters, rather than treating a dead hit as the end of the inquiry.

Maybe, but it depends on what the entity actually does. "Holding company services" wording usually falls outside the USPTO's pre-approved identifications, so it tends to require free-form wording, which adds a $200-per-class surcharge and can attract refusals if it is over-broad. Before adding Class 35 or 36 holding-company descriptions, it is worth confirming they are truly needed for your business, rather than filing them by default.

It depends on your real and intended use. Filing extra classes increases both attorney fees and USPTO fees (each class is its own base fee, plus any surcharge), and a US identification has to be supported by a bona fide intent to use in each class. You can amend to narrow during prosecution, but you generally cannot broaden. The better approach is usually to file the classes you genuinely need and use, which is part of what the strategy and goods/services tuning step is for.