Back to Office actions

What are non-substantive reasons for trademark dismissal?

Written by Jan Buza

Co-founder of Trama

Non-substantive office actions are concerned with procedural or administrative errors in your trademark application, rather than registrability issues like distinctiveness and similarity to previously registered marks. Issues commonly cited in these office actions are:

Missing or incorrect owner details (name, legal entity type, or address).
Missing or incorrect domicile address.
Missing or incomplete payment.
Deficient specimen: the specimen does not clearly demonstrate use in commerce, or is a mockup rather than a real-world example (US applications).
Goods and services description using terminology not recognized by the IP office.
Missing disclaimer for a non-distinctive element within the mark (US applications).
Representation issues: a foreign applicant has not appointed the required local representative.

Related questions

Trademark Registration: DIY vs Professional Service

Filing for trademark registration is something anybody can do with a single online application. Many business owners, however, decide to wait with trademark registration because the process can appear quite complicated at first sight. Applying without a legal representative can be a difficult and time-consuming process. Mistakes and errors are easy to make and can lead to weak trademark protection or the rejection of your trademark registration altogether.

mateus-campos-felipe-ZKJQCWsKmPs-unsplash

7 unusual and surprising trademarks people have registered

Trademark laws protect not only words and slogans, but also various shapes, sounds, and smells. With millions of trademark applications filed each year, we are seeing an influx of exceptional cases of filings for unconventional trademarks by both new and established brands. Below is a list of some of the most original and unexpected products that people have trademarked.

Meta versus Meta: Facebook faced with multiple lawsuits following their rebrand

Tech-giant formerly known as Facebook announced a rebrand and a change of its name to Meta. Following that, there were many discussions about whether a company as big as Facebook could even end up holding a complete monopoly over such generic word given hundreds of already existing trademarks in the same field of services. The results of these disputes will be decisive for the future of Meta.