Fraudulent Trademark Filings: USPTO’s 2025 fraud sweep
You picked a name, filed your trademark application, and then you learn you have been refused registration: the USPTO refused registration because an earlier filing looks too close to yours. For many businesses, that “blocking” record may not be a real brand at all. In August 2025 the USPTO announced a large enforcement action against a foreign filing outfit and terminated tens of thousands of trademark applications and trademark registrations it said were submitted without proper authority or supported by fabricated details. That cleanup helps—yet suspicious trademark records still surface and still get cited. This article explains why that happens and how we help clients clear the path.
Why Potentially Fraudulent Trademark Filings Can Block Your Trademark Registration
Examiners compare your trademark application to everything already on the USPTO’s supplemental register and principal register. If a prior trademark application or trademark registration appears confusingly similar, the USPTO examining attorney must refuse—even when the earlier trademark record looks shady or later proves invalid. The USPTO examining attorney can’t run investigations; they need reliable, on-the-record facts and a clean procedure to rely on. That’s where a targeted strategy makes the difference.
Common Red Flags To Identify Fraudulent Trademarks
Not every odd file is fraudulent, but patterns like these raise concern:
An Action Plan To Address Fraudulent Trademark Filings
1) Diagnose the Potential Fraudulent Trademark
Read the USPTO office action carefully and open the cited record. Note the owner name, address, emails, the specimen, and filing history. Ten minutes of triage often tells us whether this is a normal priority conflict or a candidate for suspension and targeted challenges.
2) Ask for a pause—with something official to point to
If the potentially fraudulent trademark filing appears tied to the 2025 sanctions or shows the same hallmarks, we request suspension so your trademark application doesn’t march toward a final refusal while the suspect file is being addressed. Examiners are most comfortable suspending when they can reference a public USPTO notice or a docketed proceeding.
3) Put admissible evidence into the right file
A Letter of Protest (LOP) is the USPTO’s channel for third-party evidence the examiner should see. We use LOPs to submit dated, source-linked proof of copied specimens, identity inconsistencies, or other red flags. If accepted, those materials are placed into the potentially fraudulent trademark owner’s record—giving your USPTO examining attorney a documented basis to rethink the trademark refusal.
4) Use the Trademark Modernization Act to delete “dead weight”
When a potentially fraudulent trademark record has already registered but appears never to have been used for the relevant goods/services, we file a TMA expungement (never-used) or reexamination (not used as of the claimed date). These proceedings are streamlined and evidence-driven; if the registrant can’t prove real use, the dead goods/services are removed, often resolving the conflict without a full-blown trademark cancellation.
5) Be surgical with TTAB trademark cancellations
Some situations call for a TTAB trademark cancellation. We frequently aim for a partial cancel that targets only the overlapping goods/services so the refusal can be withdrawn while avoiding a lengthy fight over everything else.
6) Keep momentum with a parallel filing
If time matters, we often file a second trademark application while the fraudulent trademark filing is being cleared, sometimes with a slightly refined identification of goods/services. One file stays suspended; the other advances. This two-track approach safeguards timelines without giving up your position.
What USPTO Examining Attorneys Need to See
USPTO trademark examining attorneys are accountable for every action in the record. We make it easy for them to take the right step by providing:
- A clear procedural request (suspend/maintain suspension; note LOP acceptance; acknowledge an instituted TMA proceeding).
- Verifiable, dated evidence tied to the blocker (reverse-image results, side-by-side screenshots, ownership inconsistencies).
Case study: SEVEN HARBOR for sparkling water.
Imagine your trademark application for SEVEN HARBOR is refused because the USPTO cites SEVEN HARBORS for beverages. A quick look at the cited trademark file reveals several red flags: the owner lists a freight-forwarding address, the “specimen” is a generic can mockup lifted from a stock site, and the same owner filed roughly sixty other applications for unrelated goods in the same week. In that scenario, our first move is to request suspension and reference the USPTO’s recent fraud cleanup along with those specific irregularities, so the examiner has an official basis to pause your case. We then prepare a Letter of Protest that lays out side-by-side proof the specimen is stock art used across multiple supposed brands. If the cited record proceeds to registration, we file a targeted TMA expungement petition focused on the beverage goods; if it remains pending, we keep your application suspended while the USPTO addresses the suspect filing. To preserve business timelines, we often file a parallel application with a slightly refined identification—such as “non-alcoholic sparkling water; mineral water beverages sold via grocery and specialty retailers”—so at least one path can keep moving. Once the bogus record is narrowed or terminated, the refusal is typically withdrawn and your application proceeds.
What if a Trademark Discount Service Filed Your Trademark Application?
The 2025 fraud sweep also exposed problems for trademark applicants who unknowingly used cut-rate intermediaries that submitted trademark filings without proper authority. If your trademark file lists a representative you don’t recognize or you’re not receiving USPTO emails directly, reclaim correspondence immediately so notices go to you or counsel you choose. Next, audit your specimens to confirm they reflect real U.S. commerce on the relevant dates; if they do not, it is usually safer to correct the record or re-file cleanly rather than stack new submissions on a shaky foundation. While you’re stabilizing the file, organize proof of use—sales records, retailer listings, invoices, and dated product pages—so you can support a TMA petition or respond to any USPTO audit without delay.
Timelines—What to Expect
When a suspension request is tied to a public USPTO action or a docketed petition, examiners can grant it relatively quickly. Letters of Protest are commonly reviewed within a few weeks; if accepted, the evidence is placed into the blocker’s record and gives the examiner a documented basis to reconsider the refusal. TMA expungement or reexamination proceedings usually run in months rather than years and are significantly faster than full cancellations. TTAB cancellations vary with scope and complexity, so we reserve them for the smaller set of cases that genuinely require that remedy.
Prevention Tips for New Trademark Filings.
Allow your trademark attorney to submit all trademark filings under their law firm’s account and keep the owner email current so you never miss a USPTO Office Action. From day one, plan brand-style specimens—labels, tags, packaging, and product-page headers—rather than relying solely on hero graphics or large front-of-shirt artwork. Monitor your trademark application and respond early, because requests for suspension and Letters of Protest are most effective before a final refusal issues. Finally, avoid “too-cheap” filing non-attorney trademark mills; the few dollars saved up front often translate into months of cleanup later.
The Bottom Line
A trademark refusal based on a suspicious earlier filing does not mean you have to rename your brand. With the right playbook—diagnose, pause, insert admissible evidence, use TMA tools, and keep a parallel path open—you can clear bogus obstacles and protect your mark. The key is acting promptly and giving the USPTO a documented, procedure-clean reason to move your trademark application forward.
