Henry Law Firm

Beware trademark scams!

Beware trademark scams!

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued warnings about the rising incidences of trademark scams. As a current or prospective trademark owner, you should be aware of the danger so that you can avoid falling victim.

What is the scam?

Trademark registrations are a matter of public record. This public availability is generally a good thing: it allows other potential users to determine in advance if their contemplated mark is already in use. This knowledge can streamline a new registration where appropriate, as well as help avoid unintentional infringement where the mark is already in use. But the ready access to information—including to whom the trademark was issued, when the mark was issued, and when it is due for renewals—provides an opportunity for unscrupulous parties to try to leverage this publicly available information to the detriment of the rightful trademark owners.

The USPTO informs us that scammers have been using this information to send solicitations to trademark applicants and owners. Often, these solicitations appear official. Some solicitations offer what appear to be legitimate services such as responding to Office Actions. Other solicitations offer what appears to be a simple method of paying fees. Still other solicitations offer entirely fraudulent services, such as offering to register your mark on a “private registry” that does not exist or offer any legal protection to your mark. And, of course, solicitations come with a request for fees for their services in addition to any (often inflated) fees due the USPTO.

However, money sent to scammers may not be appropriately forwarded to the USPTO, or the services offered may be incompetent—which can result in serious consequences to your mark, including abandonment!

How do you avoid falling victim?

The first thing to know is that official correspondence about a trademark application or registration will be from the “United States Patent and Trademark Office” in Alexandria, Virginia. All official emails will be from the domain “@uspto.gov.” So step one in avoiding becoming a victim is verifying the correspondence is real. Besides verifying the domain of email, you can look up your mark in the Trademark Electronic Search System—also known as TESS. There you will find the current status of your mark, as well as any documentation (including correspondence) from the USPTO that relates to your mark. If the solicitation you received is not shown in the official file, it is not an official correspondence.

The second thing to know is that the USPTO does not require trademark applicants or owners to use any specific service. If the solicitation implies that the company is the only or preferred method to fulfill requirements at the USPTO, it is a scam. While trademark owners are allowed to use representatives—including attorneys—to interact with the USPTO, the use of any particular representative is not required. And there is no preferential treatment available to any owner or applicant by virtue of who they use to interact with the USPTO.

Finally, the USPTO has made the following request regarding trademark scams: If you receive a trademark-related offer or notice that you believe is misleading, file a consumer complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) immediately. Keep the suspected offer or notice as well as its envelope. Any or all of these may be requested later. Although the FTC does not resolve individual consumer complaints, as the nation’s consumer protection agency it may begin investigations and prosecutions based on widespread complaints about particular companies or business practices. The USPTO also encourages you to contact your state consumer protection authorities. Many states, if not all, have the authority to issue investigative subpoenas and file complaints against companies engaged in misleading practices directed toward state residents.

We make avoiding scams easier

Henry Law stays on top of the deadlines and requirements of our trademark clients. We will let you know when actions or fees are required, and we can help you evaluate any correspondence you receive in relation to your trademark. But regardless of whether you choose to use our services or not, it is imperative that you view any correspondence related to your mark with a critical eye before accepting offers or paying fees.

HENRY LAW FIRM

Otto M. Bartsch

With degrees in philosophy and chemistry, Otto excels in complex litigation and intellectual property cases.

In a recent federal case, Otto used forensic digital analysis of crucial documents to reveal their fraudulent nature, immediately resolving all claims in our client’s favor. Otto led a multi-jurisdictional collection effort of a $3.4 million judgment for Oklahoma Genetics, Inc. The case was on claims of intentional violation of the Plant Variety Protection Act, and a federal judge tripled our client’s damages. Years after the judgment was entered, Henry Law Firm forcibly seized substantial assets, and OGI could re-invest proceeds into future seed varieties and genetics.

Before affiliating with Henry Law Firm and practicing law as Otto M. Bartsch, PLLC, Otto earned his Master of Laws in Intellectual Property & Technology Law. At graduation, Otto ranked highest in his LL.M. class. He also won the Client Counseling Competition and competed in the national semi-finals of the AILPA Giles Rich Moot Court Competition in intellectual property law.

Otto works with clients to establish and protect their trademarks, copyrights, and brand identities. He is also experienced in breaking or enforcing non-competition agreements.

COURT ADMISSIONS

Otto is licensed to practice in Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas and has been admitted to practice in several federal courts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

HENRY LAW FIRM

Mark Henry

Mark is AV-Preeminent™ rated, a distinction earned through years of consistently outstanding legal work and a reputation for integrity. With decades of experience as a registered patent attorney and an LL.M. in agricultural law, he has developed a deep focus on protecting agricultural seed technology. Mark works closely with universities and multinational companies to navigate complex intellectual property matters and ensure long-term protection of innovation. He has handled more than 100 cases under the Plant Variety Protection Act, bringing a wealth of practical insight to the defense of plant breeders' rights. In addition to his legal practice, Mark has contributed to the field as an educator, teaching agricultural biotechnology law in the LL.M. program at the University of Arkansas School of Law.

Mark prosecutes and defends highly complex civil litigation and high-stakes, bet-the-company disputes involving trade secrets, patents, copyrights, and DMCA claims in federal courts across the country. His cases frequently address cutting-edge issues involving computer code, seed genetics, and architectural works. Licensed in six states and admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, he has served as lead counsel for clients in more than twenty-five states, offering broad strategic perspective and experience.

Mark brought one of the first cases under the Frank Broyles Publicity Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-75-1101, helping to shape the early application of Arkansas’s right of publicity law. He successfully represented professional rodeo athlete Cody James in a case involving the unauthorized commercial use of James’s name and likeness. A decorated competitor, Cody has qualified for the Arkansas Rodeo Association Championships 22 times, is a seven-time ARA Champion, and has been named both Overall Rookie of the Year and Tie-down Roping Rookie of the Year by the Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association. Mark’s advocacy in Cody James v. Boot Barn, Inc., No. 4:22-cv-646-KGB (E.D. Ark. 2023), helped affirm the importance of protecting the identity and brand of professional athletes under Arkansas law.

He also serves as both trial and appellate counsel, offering a comprehensive approach to complex litigation. In Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Southwest Power Pool, Inc., Case No. 23-1293, (8th Cir. 2024), Mark secured a significant trial and appellate victory, successfully defending a $37.64 million claim in an energy dispute involving tariffed energy rates. The Eighth Circuit agreed that SPP had fully compensated AECI for the transactions in question and held that equitable recovery theories are not available when an express contract governs the parties’ relationship.

Mark is also known for taking a principled stand against improper litigation conduct. In Lyon v. The Academy, Inc., 2024 Ark. App. 386, he obtained Rule 11 sanctions against opposing Arkansas counsel Matthew Campbell and Elizabeth Lyon. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the sanctions, finding that their claims were frivolous, had no chance of success, and were brought solely to harass and drive up litigation costs—highlighting Mark’s commitment to professionalism and the integrity of the legal process.

When disputes arise with Walmart, Mark provides trusted counsel to both large and small vendors. Given that Walmart is headquartered in Northwest Arkansas and most of its contracts require disputes to be litigated in Benton County, Mark’s location in Fayetteville—home to the federal court for Northwest Arkansas—positions him ideally to handle these matters efficiently and effectively.

Mark is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Eighth and Federal Circuits, and several federal district courts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, the District of Nebraska, and the Eastern and Western Districts of Oklahoma. He also represents clients before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in trademark matters.

LAW REVIEW AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL ARTICLES