File Trademark

File trademark app EUIPO (EU), USPTO (US), or WIPO Madrid (intl). Covers filing — pre-filing verify → post-registration monitoring + open-source policy. Assumes conflict screening done via screen-trademark.

Use When

• Ready to file after conflict screening clear
• Choose between EU/US/intl strategies
• File EU + claim priority for US
• Extend national mark intl via Madrid
• Draft open-source trademark policy post-registration
• Respond to office actions/opposition during exam

In

• Required: Mark (word, logo, combined)
• Required: Goods + services description
• Required: Target jurisdictions (EU, US, intl, combo)
• Required: Applicant name + address
• Optional: Screen-trademark results
• Optional: Logo files (figurative/combined)
• Optional: Priority claim (earlier filing, w/in 6mo)
• Optional: Proof of use in commerce (USPTO 1(a))
• Optional: Open-source project context (Step 10)

Filing Cost Reference

Office	Base Fee	Per Class	Notes
EUIPO	850 EUR	+50 EUR (2nd), +150 EUR (3rd+)	SME Fund: 75% rebate
USPTO (TEAS Plus)	$250	per class	Foreign applicants need US attorney
USPTO (TEAS Standard)	$350	per class	More flexible goods description
Madrid Protocol	653 CHF	varies by country	Depends on base mark for 5 years

Do

Step 1: Pre-Filing Checks

Verify clear before invest fees.

1. Confirm screen-trademark ran:
   • Review conflict report identical/similar marks
   • All target jurisdictions covered
   • Recent (ideally ≤30 days)
2. Final checks vs official DBs:
   • EUIPO TMview: EU member state registers
   • WIPO Global Brand Database: Intl registrations
   • USPTO TESS: US federal (use: "mark text"[BI])
   • DPMAregister: German national (if EU, largest market)
3. Verify domain + social handles:
   • Domain reinforces distinctiveness
   • Matching handles reduce confusion
4. Document as Pre-Filing Clearance Record

→ No blocking marks in targets. Record documents diligence + supports opposition defense.

If err: conflicts → severity: identical mark + identical goods → don't file. Similar + related → legal counsel on confusion likelihood. Limited to 1 jurisdiction → file only clear ones.

Step 2: Nice Classification

Identify correct goods/services classes.

1. Consult TMclass (tmclass.tmdn.org):
   • Enter goods/services
   • Suggests harmonized terms accepted by most offices
   • Pre-approved terms → reduce exam delays
2. Common classes tech/software:
   • Class 9: Downloadable software, mobile apps, hardware
   • Class 35: Advertising, business mgmt, SaaS admin
   • Class 42: SaaS, cloud, software dev services
   • Class 38: Telecom, online platforms, messaging
3. Draft description:
   • Specific enough for actual use, broad enough for expansion
   • TEAS Plus (USPTO) → ID Manual pre-approved
   • EUIPO → TMclass harmonized directly
4. Balance cost vs coverage:
   • Each class adds fees
   • File where use or intend to use
   • Overly broad w/o use → challenged (esp US)

→ Finalized list Nice classes w/ specific pre-approved descriptions. Matches actual use.

If err: no TMclass match → Nice Classification explanatory notes (WIPO). Ambiguous goods span classes → file all relevant.

Step 3: Descriptiveness

Evaluate registrable or faces objections.

1. Abercrombie spectrum (US standard):
   • Generic: Common name ("Computer" for computers) — never registrable
   • Descriptive: Directly describes ("QuickBooks") — only w/ secondary meaning
   • Suggestive: Suggests not describes ("Netflix") — registrable w/o
   • Arbitrary: Real word unrelated context ("Apple" for electronics) — strong
   • Fanciful: Invented ("Xerox") — strongest
2. EUTMR absolute grounds (Art 7(1)):
   • Art 7(1)(b): Devoid distinctive character
   • Art 7(1)(c): Descriptive of characteristics
   • Art 7(1)(d): Customary in trade
3. Borderline descriptive:
   • Evidence of acquired distinctiveness (advertising, sales, surveys)
   • Add distinctive element (logo, stylization)
   • Modify → suggestive/arbitrary
4. Document assessment

→ Classified suggestive/arbitrary/fanciful — registrable w/o secondary meaning. Borderline flagged w/ mitigation.

If err: descriptive/generic → don't file → refused. Redesign up spectrum. Significant use history → Section 2(f) claim (US) or Art 7(3) EUTMR (EU).

Step 4: Mark Type

Registration type best protects.

1. Word mark (standard chars):
   • Protects word regardless font/color/style
   • Broadest — covers any visual
   • No design
   • Brand value in name not logo
2. Figurative (logo):
   • Protects specific visual
   • Narrower — no word in other styles
   • Required when logo = primary identifier
   • Clear image (JPG/PNG, EUIPO: max 2MB, min 945x945)
3. Combined (word + logo):
   • Protects specific combination
   • Narrower than word alone
   • Common but suboptimal: logo changes → registration may not cover new
4. Strategic:
   • Word first (broadest, cost-effective)
   • Separate figurative if logo has standalone value
   • Avoid combined unless budget

→ Clear decision + reasoning. Word default unless logo independent brand value.

If err: unsure name distinctive enough → ask "Would consumers recognize in plain text w/o logo?" Yes → word mark. Logo inseparable → both word + figurative separately.

Step 5: Filing Basis

Legal basis (primarily USPTO).

1. Use — Section 1(a):
   • Already in interstate commerce (US) or genuine use (EU)
   • Submit specimen showing use (screenshot, packaging, ads)
   • Fastest
2. Intent to use — Section 1(b):
   • Not yet in use but bona fide intent
   • Statement of Use before registration (fees, deadlines)
   • Secure priority before launch
   • Extensions (up to 36mo total)
3. Foreign priority — Section 44(d):
   • Claim priority from foreign filing w/in last 6mo
   • Strategy: File EUIPO first (lower, faster), then claim 44(d) priority USPTO
   • US filing same priority date as EU
   • Certified copy of foreign app
4. Foreign registration — Section 44(e):
   • Based on foreign registration (not just app)
   • No US commerce at filing (but must eventually)
5. Madrid Protocol — Section 66(a):
   • Designate US through Madrid
   • See Step 8

→ Basis selected + timeline + specimen requirements. EU-first strategy → 6mo priority window calendared.

If err: no use + no foreign pending → Section 1(b) only for USPTO. Factor Statement of Use costs + deadlines. EUIPO → no use at filing, declaration sufficient.

Step 6: EUIPO E-Filing

File EU online.

1. EUIPO e-filing portal (euipo.europa.eu):
   • Create user account
   • "Fast Track" for pre-approved TMclass (faster exam)
2. Complete form:
   • Applicant: Name, address, legal form, nationality
   • Representative: Optional EU-based; required non-EU
   • Mark: Word text or upload figurative
   • Goods + services: TMclass terms or custom
   • Filing language: EN/FR/DE/ES/IT (2nd required)
   • Priority claim: Foreign app # + date
3. Fee summary:
   • 1 class: 850 EUR
   • 2 classes: 900 EUR (+50)
   • 3+: 900 EUR + 150 EUR per additional
   • SME Fund (EUIPOIdeaforIP): 75% rebate
4. Pay (credit, bank transfer, EUIPO account)
5. Save receipt w/ app # + filing date

→ Filed w/ confirmation. App # + date recorded. Fast Track → exam typically 1mo.

If err: portal rejects (technical) → screenshot + retry. Goods/services rejected → pre-approved TMclass. Payment fails → draft saved 30d.

Step 7: USPTO Filing

File US federal online.

1. USPTO TEAS:
   • TEAS Plus ($250/class) or TEAS Standard ($350/class)
   • Plus = pre-approved ID Manual; Standard = free-form
2. Foreign applicant requirement:
   • Non-US domiciled MUST appoint US-licensed attorney
   • Member good standing US state bar
   • Applies even Madrid Protocol
3. Complete form:
   • Applicant: Name, address, entity, citizenship/state
   • Attorney: Name, bar, email
   • Mark: Word standard chars or design image
   • Goods + services: ID Manual (Plus) or custom (Standard)
   • Filing basis: 1(a), 1(b), 44(d), 44(e)
   • Specimen (1(a) only): Show mark as used
   • Declaration: Under penalty of perjury
4. Pay ($250 or $350/class)
5. Save receipt w/ serial # + filing date

→ Filed w/ serial # assigned. Receipt saved. Exam typ 8-12mo first office action.

If err: TEAS rejects → review errs — common: wrong entity type, missing specimen (1(a)), goods not matching ID Manual (Plus). Foreign applicant no US attorney → rejected.

Step 8: Madrid Protocol

Extend intl via WIPO Madrid.

1. Prereqs:
   • Base mark (app or registration) in origin office
   • Applicant national/domiciled/real establishment Madrid member
   • Base covers same/narrower goods/services
2. File through origin (not directly WIPO):
   • EUIPO origin: EUIPO Madrid e-filing
   • USPTO origin: TEAS International Application
3. Complete Madrid (MM2):
   • Applicant: Match base mark holder exactly
   • Mark: Identical to base
   • Goods + services: From base (narrow OK, not broaden)
   • Designated Contracting Parties: Target countries/regions
   • Language: EN, FR, ES
4. Fees:
   • Base: 653 CHF (B&W) or 903 CHF (color)
   • Supplementary: 100 CHF per class beyond first
   • Individual: Vary by country (WIPO fee calc)
   • Common: US ~$400+/class, Japan ~$500+/class, China ~$150+/class
5. Central attack dependency:
   • First 5yr intl registration depends on base
   • Base cancelled → all designations fall
   • After 5yr → each designation indep
   • Strategy: Protect base vigorously dependency period

→ Filed through origin. Countries + fees documented. 5yr dependency risk acknowledged + base protection plan.

If err: origin rejects (mismatch w/ base) → correct + refile. Country refuses → respond through Madrid w/in designated office deadline (typ 12-18mo).

Step 9: Post-Filing Monitoring

Track through exam + respond.

1. EUIPO:
   • Publication Part A EU Trade Marks Bulletin
   • Opposition period: 3mo (extendable 1mo cooling-off)
   • No opposition → registration auto
   • Opposition defense: file observations w/in 2mo notification
2. USPTO:
   • Check TSDR regularly
   • Examining attorney: 8-12mo after filing
   • Office actions: 3mo response (extendable once $125)
   • Publication for opposition: 30-day Official Gazette
   • Statement of Use (1(b)): w/in 6mo Notice of Allowance (extendable up to 36mo total, $125/ext)
3. Madrid:
   • WIPO notifies each office
   • Each exams indep (12-18mo)
   • Provisional refusals → respond through local office
4. Calendar deadlines:
   • Opposition response
   • Statement of Use (USPTO 1(b))
   • Renewal (10yr EUIPO, 10yr USPTO, 10yr Madrid)
   • USPTO Section 8/71 Declaration of Use: between 5th-6th yr
5. Monitor third-party filings similar:
   • TMview/TESS watch alerts similar marks in classes
   • Professional watch service for critical brands

→ Deadlines calendared w/ reminders. Status monitored via office systems. Response strategies prepared.

If err: missed deadline fatal — most not extendable. Check revival/reinstatement (USPTO petition to revive for unintentional). EUIPO missed opposition → generally final.

Step 10: Open-Source Trademark Policy

Draft usage policy if mark covers OS project.

1. Study established:
   • Linux Foundation: Factual references OK; logos restricted to licensees
   • Mozilla: Guidelines distinguishing unmodified distributions from modified
   • Rust Foundation: Broad community use w/ commercial restrictions
   • Apache Software Foundation: Permissive naming w/ endorsement restrictions
2. Usage categories:
   • Fair use (always): Articles, reviews, comparisons, academic
   • Community/contributor (broadly): User groups, conferences, education, unmodified distributions
   • Commercial (license/restrictions): Products, services, certification/compatibility
   • Prohibited: Implying endorsement, modified versions w/o disclosure, confusing domains
3. Draft policy doc:
   • Ownership statement
   • What allowed w/o permission
   • What requires written permission
   • How to request (contact, process)
   • Consequences misuse
4. Place in repo:
   • Common: TRADEMARKS.md, TRADEMARK-POLICY.md, or section in CONTRIBUTING.md
   • Link from README.md + website
5. Register before publishing:
   • Policy w/o registration unenforceable most cases
   • At min → file app before publishing — "TM" immediate, "(R)" only after

→ Clear fair policy protecting brand + enabling healthy community. Follows OS foundation models + accessible from main docs.

If err: no registration/app → file first (Steps 6-8) before drafting. Unregistered limited enforceability. Community pushback → study Rust Foundation — revised after feedback, good model.

Check

• Pre-filing conflict checks documented (Step 1)
• Nice classes w/ pre-approved descriptions (Step 2)
• Descriptiveness on Abercrombie (Step 3)
• Mark type w/ reasoning (Step 4)
• Filing basis + timeline + specimen (Step 5)
• Filed ≥1 target (Steps 6-8)
• Receipt saved w/ app # + date
• Post-filing deadlines calendared (Step 9)
• Watch alerts configured (Step 9)
• OS policy drafted if applicable (Step 10)

Traps

• File w/o screen: Skip screen-trademark → waste fees if conflict. Always screen first.
• Wrong basis: Claim 1(a) when not in use = fraudulent. Use 1(b) intent-to-use if no launch.
• Overly broad goods: Claim you don't use/intend → cancellation for non-use (esp EU after 5yr).
• Miss priority window: 44(d) priority must be claimed w/in 6mo of first filing. Miss → lose earlier date.
• Foreign attorney req: Non-US applicants at USPTO w/o US attorney → rejected. Hard rule since 2019.
• Madrid central attack exposure: Rely solely on Madrid w/o understanding 5yr dependency. Base falls → all fall.
• No monitoring: File + forget. Office actions + opposition deadlines pass → abandoned.
• Policy before registration: Publish policy w/o ≥app pending → undermines enforceability. File first.

→

• screen-trademark — Conflict screening preceding this
• assess-ip-landscape — Broader IP landscape incl trademark mapping
• search-prior-art — Prior art methodology applicable to distinctiveness