Send me your mark, your goods or services, and any knockout work you have already done. I run an independent USPTO sweep, screen state and common-law uses, apply the DuPont factors to every meaningful conflict, and send back a written opinion letter with a clear risk grade and a recommended path. Flat $1,250 for one mark in up to two Nice classes.
Rush: +$250 for 24 to 48 hour turnaround. Additional classes: +$300 per class beyond two. Comprehensive vendor search (Corsearch / CompuMark) is not in scope; if the risk grade calls for one, I will coordinate it as a separate engagement.
Just the mark, the goods or services you intend to use it with, the Nice class(es), and any knockout or clearance work you already have. If you have a Word document or PDF, attach it. The cleaner the goods description, the more useful the opinion.
I do not just rely on whatever you sent. I run my own searches covering literal hits, phonetic equivalents, translation equivalents, and design marks whose literal element overlaps with yours. I look inside your class(es) and pull related classes where cross-class confusion is plausible.
Federal registration is not the only source of TM rights. Common-law users (Google, Amazon, social platforms, domain registrations, state secretary-of-state name records) can have priority and block your use even when nothing turns up at the USPTO. I sweep them.
For each potential conflict, I work through the DuPont factors (similarity of marks, similarity of goods, channels of trade, sophistication of buyers, strength of the senior mark, evidence of actual confusion, and the rest). This is the test the TTAB and federal courts use under Lanham Act Section 2(d).
The letter identifies every hit I considered, explains why each hit was included or excluded, grades the overall risk (clear, low, moderate, elevated, or high), and recommends a path: file as-is, narrow the goods, pivot the mark, or pursue a coexistence path. Two rounds of follow-up email questions are included.
No meaningful prior users that should block the application or create infringement risk on the current facts.
One or two distant hits worth noting; under the DuPont factors, none rises to a likely Section 2(d) refusal or infringement claim.
One or more meaningful hits; manageable by narrowing the goods description, adding a class limitation, or adopting a slight stylization. The opinion will spell out the specific changes that would move the risk down.
The hits are close enough that an unmodified application is likely to draw a Section 2(d) refusal or a cease-and-desist. Pivot, redesign, or pursue a written coexistence agreement.
One or more senior users present a real infringement risk on top of the USPTO blockade risk. The opinion will explain why and what alternatives look workable.
Send me the mark, the goods, and any knockout work you already have. Standard turnaround 3 to 5 business days.
Request this package →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, we can scope that separately.