Trademark & intellectual property FAQs

Our qualifying use-in-commerce search-and-application package is $2,700 in attorney fees for one mark in up to two classes. Base USPTO application fees are currently $350 per class, so the starting totals are $3,050 for one class or $3,400 for two, before additional fees or out-of-scope work. Contact us to confirm eligibility and scope.

DBA — Scope and fee information · USPTO — Trademark fee information

Yes. Additional charges can apply when an application lacks required information or uses custom goods-and-services wording instead of an available ID Manual entry. Fees also depend on the filing and procedural step. Review the actual application and current USPTO fee requirements before treating a base fee as the final government cost.

USPTO — Additional application fees

Federal trademark registration usually starts before the application is filed. A good clearance search can identify conflicting marks, naming problems, and other issues while there is still time to change course. From there, the application must accurately identify the owner, the goods or services being protected, and whether the mark is already in use or is being filed on an intent-to-use basis.

After filing, a USPTO examining attorney reviews the application. The examiner may approve it, raise technical issues, or issue an Office Action based on concerns such as likelihood of confusion or descriptiveness. If the application clears examination, it is published so third parties have an opportunity to oppose the registration. Intent-to-use applications require an additional showing that the mark is actually being used in commerce before registration can issue.

For businesses, the important question is usually not just “Can we register this trademark?” It is whether the filing protects the brand the way the company actually uses it and expects to grow. We help clients think through clearance, filing strategy, ownership, classes of goods and services, USPTO responses, and the longer-term value of the trademark portfolio—not simply getting an application on file.

There is no fixed completion date. Examination queues, the filing basis, refusals, publication and any opposition affect the timeline. An intent-to-use application also needs the required proof-of-use filing before registration. Use the USPTO’s current processing information for planning, and distinguish an average from a deadline or promise for your application.

USPTO — Current processing times · USPTO — Intent-to-use applications

Read the actual notice first. Most pre-registration actions for Section 1 or Section 44 applications have a three-month response period, with one paid three-month extension available if timely requested. Madrid Section 66(a) applications generally have six months and no such extension. Other notice types may have different rules; scheduling a consultation does not preserve a deadline.

USPTO — Response time periods

A standard-character application focuses on wording without limiting it to one particular font or design. A special-form application covers the mark as depicted. A combined logo filing is not automatically equivalent to separately protecting its wording and design. The right filing sequence depends on how customers encounter your brand and what you can budget.

USPTO — Drawing of your trademark

A bona fide intent to use a mark can support an intent-to-use application before the required commercial use begins. Intent-to-use matters follow our separate fee schedule; contact us for the applicable fees and scope, including later use-related filings. They are not covered by the advertised $2,700 use-in-commerce package.

USPTO — Intent-to-use applications · DBA — Scope and fee information

Not necessarily. The letter may raise a correctable requirement or a substantive refusal that needs legal analysis and evidence. A response must address the outstanding issues. Final refusals require careful review of the available procedural options and deadlines. DBA handles substantive response work at current hourly rates; an outcome cannot be guaranteed.

USPTO — Responding to office actions · DBA — Scope and fee information

Possible approaches depend on the record. They can include disputing the refusal, showing acquired distinctiveness when supported by evidence, or considering the Supplemental Register if eligible. Those options have different consequences, and changing registers is not always available. Descriptiveness analysis and substantive response work are billed at our current hourly rates.

USPTO — Responding to office actions · USPTO — Strong trademarks

If you are domiciled in the United States, you are not required to hire an attorney to file a trademark application. Foreign-domiciled applicants and registrants must be represented before the USPTO by a U.S.-licensed attorney. But doing so can create problems that are much more expensive than the legal fees you were trying to save.

A poorly prepared application can be rejected, filed in the wrong class, identify the wrong owner, or describe the goods and services too narrowly—or too broadly. You may end up with a registration that does not actually protect the parts of the business you thought it did.

The bigger risk is clearance. A basic USPTO search is not the same thing as a comprehensive trademark search. Another business may have superior common-law rights even without a federal registration, and those rights may not be obvious from the USPTO database alone. If you build a brand, spend heavily on advertising, and then learn that someone else has better rights, the cost can be enormous.

Saving a little money at the filing stage can put the brand—and, for some companies, a meaningful part of the business—at risk. For marks that matter, the better approach is usually to have experienced trademark counsel and a reputable search provider evaluate the name before significant money is invested in it.

Yes. The USPTO requires foreign-domiciled applicants and registrants to be represented by a U.S.-licensed attorney. U.S.-domiciled applicants generally may represent themselves, but must still meet the same filing and substantive requirements. The domicile rule concerns the applicant’s legal circumstances, not the geographic audience of its website.

USPTO — Do I need an attorney?

A clearance search goes beyond an exact-name search of federal registrations. It considers similar names and designs, related products or services, pending applications, and relevant marketplace use. State records, business-name records and online sources can reveal users who have not registered federally. The practical question is whether the proposed brand creates a material conflict before you invest in the launch.

USPTO — Comprehensive clearance searches

For most non-Madrid registrations, the first use declaration is due between years five and six after registration. A combined use declaration and renewal is due between years nine and ten, then every ten years. A six-month grace period carries extra fees. Madrid-based registrations have separate U.S. Section 71 and WIPO renewal obligations. Check the specific record rather than relying on a reminder.

USPTO — Keeping your registration alive

Do not claim ongoing use for goods or services that are no longer supported by the facts. Review the full registration before filing and address deletions or any legally supportable excusable nonuse. The USPTO may audit a maintenance submission and request proof beyond the initially selected specimen. Unsupported claims can put the registration at risk.

USPTO — Post-registration audits · USPTO — Keeping your registration alive

QSBS benefits under Section 1202 depend on the company being an “active” business—not just a passive holder of intellectual property.

If IP is separated into a holding entity and merely licensed back without sufficient operational activity, the company can jeopardize eligibility for QSBS treatment, including the potential $10M+ tax-free gain on exit.

We structure IP ownership and licensing strategies to preserve both protection and QSBS eligibility—so safeguarding your intellectual property does not come at the expense of your most valuable tax incentives.

No. Entity-name approval and domain registration do not decide whether your brand infringes someone else’s trademark. A name can be available with a state agency or registrar and still conflict with a mark used for related goods or services. Arrange clearance before committing to packaging, signage or a website launch.

USPTO — Trademark process

Yes. Marks need not be identical. Similarity in sound, appearance, meaning or overall commercial impression can matter, together with the relationship between the goods or services. Changing one letter or choosing a different class is not a reliable way to avoid a conflict.

USPTO — Likelihood of confusion

Distinctive names generally provide a stronger starting point than wording that simply describes the product. Invented terms, ordinary words used in an unrelated way, and suggestive names can be stronger choices. Generic wording cannot identify a single source for the goods it names; descriptive wording may face registration and enforcement limits.

USPTO — Strong trademarks

Use can create trademark rights without federal registration, but those rights may be limited by geography and the facts of use. Federal registration offers important nationwide benefits, including public notice and legal presumptions. It does not erase every earlier user’s rights or give ownership of a word for every industry.

USPTO — Why register your trademark?

For an intent-to-use application, the initial period is six months from the Notice of Allowance to file an acceptable Statement of Use or request an extension. Further extensions are limited and require timely filings and fees. Track that notice independently of your launch calendar. Contact us for our intent-to-use fee schedule and deadline review.

USPTO — Intent-to-use forms and extensions

Identify the actual owner before filing. The right applicant may be an individual or a legal entity, depending on who owns and uses the mark or holds the required intent to use it. Do not assume that a founder, parent company or newly formed LLC is interchangeable with another entity. Bring formation documents and any ownership or license agreements to the consultation.

USPTO — Filing basis · USPTO — Transferring trademark ownership

A specimen must show real use of the applied-for mark with the identified goods or services. Appropriate examples depend on the offering: goods may use labels or packaging; services may use material that connects the mark with the services actually provided. A webpage submission must include its URL and access or print date. A logo file by itself is usually not enough.

USPTO — Specimens and specimen refusals

No. A fabricated image showing how the mark might be used is not evidence of actual commercial use. Preserve authentic photos, labels and webpage records instead. If the business has not reached the required use stage, discuss the filing basis rather than creating a specimen to make the application appear ready.

USPTO — Specimens and specimen refusals

Standalone office-action response work and substantive refusals are billed at our current hourly rates. A nonsubstantive response expressly included in an existing qualifying registration package remains within that agreed scope. Appeals and other substantive work are hourly. Send the complete USPTO letter and serial number so we can evaluate the issue, deadline and engagement terms.

DBA — Scope and fee information

Portfolio management is billed at our current hourly rates. That includes separately scoped reviews of multiple marks, ownership records, renewal planning, brand expansion and transaction-related trademark issues. Contact us with the list of marks, registration numbers and business priorities so we can define the work. This is outside the $2,700 single-mark application package.

DBA — Scope and fee information

Review the transaction documents and trademark records together. An ownership transfer and a change in the same owner’s legal name are different events. Appropriate documents may need to be recorded through USPTO Assignment Center, and the application or registration record should be checked afterward. Transaction and portfolio work is billed at current hourly rates.

USPTO — Transferring trademark ownership · DBA — Scope and fee information

Keep the letter, identify any stated deadline, and preserve records of adoption and use. Do not assume that the sender’s registration proves every allegation, or that your own LLC filing resolves the dispute. Counsel can assess the asserted rights and response options. Contact DBA for an hourly engagement assessment and explore our IP litigation practice for contested matters.

USPTO — Receiving a trademark demand letter

No. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decides rights to federal registration, including oppositions and cancellations. It does not decide infringement claims or award damages. A registration dispute and a court dispute can require different strategies. Substantive contested work is hourly; discuss the proceeding and deadline with counsel.

USPTO — About the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Do not pay simply because a notice uses your serial number or looks official. Trademark records are public, and misleading solicitations can copy those details. Compare the notice with the official record and ask your attorney before paying an unfamiliar service. The USPTO publishes examples of common scams and misleading offers.

USPTO — Recognizing common scams

Eligible marks registered on the USPTO’s Principal Register can be recorded with U.S. Customs and Border Protection through its separate recordation process. Supplemental Register marks are not eligible for that recordation. Registration alone does not complete the CBP step. Discuss the products, registrations and supply chain with counsel.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection — IP recordation

Not automatically. Trademark protection is territorial. WIPO’s Madrid System can simplify seeking protection in designated member jurisdictions, but each designated office applies its own law and may refuse protection. Plan around where the business will sell, manufacture or license the brand. International strategy and portfolio analysis are hourly; contact us about the appropriate filing scope.

WIPO — International application process

The “bundle of sticks” is a way of describing intellectual property as a set of separate rights, not a single asset. Those rights can include the ability to use, license, transfer, restrict, or enforce the IP, and each one can be divided, limited, or assigned independently.

For example, a company may own the underlying IP but license certain rights to partners under defined terms. In a transaction, those same rights may be split further across jurisdictions, industries, or use cases.

Understanding which “sticks” you own—and which you’ve given away—is critical. Most IP issues in disputes and transactions come down to gaps or inconsistencies in how those rights were structured, documented, or transferred.

Trademarks protect brands and identifiers. Patents protect inventions and technical innovations. Copyrights protect original creative works like software, content, and media.

Not necessarily. One of the biggest risks to corporate IP is a break in the “chain of title” caused by AI-generated assets.

U.S. copyright law still requires meaningful human authorship. If content, code, or other assets are generated primarily by AI, traditional work-for-hire or assignment provisions may not be enough to secure ownership. In some cases, those assets may not be protectable at all.

We help companies structure workflows, agreements, and documentation to establish the necessary human contribution and preserve ownership—so core assets are protectable, transferable, and defensible in transactions and disputes.

Potentially—but not in the way most companies assume.

You generally cannot register an entire codebase and expect it to hold up if significant portions were generated by AI. Because current law does not recognize AI as an “author,” protection depends on the human contribution to the final product.

That means focusing on the human decisions—the selection, arrangement, and refinement of AI-generated output—that turn raw code into a proprietary system.

We help companies document that contribution and structure development workflows so AI-assisted code remains protectable, transferable, and defensible in transactions and disputes.