Category Archives: Industry Breakdown

TM TKO: 2020 Trademark Economic & Practice Forecast

TM TKO is compiling data on trademark lawyers’ expectations for the new year. We would love to have your feedback! Topics include the economy and the trademark bar, practice challenges, USPTO performance, and more. All data will be used only in aggregate form, and published for the benefit of the trademark community; your individual response will not be used in any way.

To take the survey, go here.

Your feedback and insights will be shared with the trademark community. Make sure to visit TM TKO’s blog to see the results later this month.

Brands and Bad Things – the Flu

So, I got the flu over the holidays. It’s basically passed me – although it’s not entirely out of the house – and I figured I should at least turn several miserable days into a bit of blog content. I did some research about brands and the flu – not brands for flu PRODUCTS, but brands that include the word FLU or INFLUENZA.

As you would expect, many of these are influenza-related. That more interesting part are probably the non-flu related uses that clearly refer to influenza, and aren’t just coincidental uses of the abbreviation. There were only a handful, and a number included a second word that made the use of FLU a positive comparison, like FLU SHOT. In short: the influenza virus does not have any of the brand cachet that, say, a powerful and ill-tempered animal like a wolverine does. Alas, it’s not build some “bad boy” street cred just by being amazingly destructive — a thing must look stylish in the process. Diseases fall short, and just aren’t that useable as brands.

Some representative marks:

41: A FLU SHOT FOR YOUR HOUSE, pending for germ remediation services.
33: FLU SHOT for booze.
28: FLU-FLU for fishing lure (maybe this has some fishing-related meaning?).
25: FLU for clothing (filed by Fort Lewis College; possibly an acronym of some sort?); FLU GAME for clothing; THE VEGAS FLU for clothing.
18: GIRL FLU for carrying cases.
9, 24, 25: FISH FLU for clothing and such.

The following counts are for active applications or registrations that are focused on flu treatment or prevention, or merchandizing like clothing associated with those treatment or prevention efforts. This is counting by class, and a number of the applications in ancillary classes are by a couple of applicants in the “inform you about the risks of the flu” space. On the whole: as you would expect, most filings are for remedies in Class 5 and medical services in Class 44. There was little specialized medical equipment in Class 10.

3: 1
5: 30
9: 3
10: 2
16: 2
18: 2
25: 5
30: 2
35: 13
36: 3
41: 6
42: 9
44: 22

In conclusion, our considered corporate opinion is: really, don’t get the flu this year. It isn’t fun.

Pictured: the author’s house during the holiday season, 2019

Team Names and Business Branding in College Towns

I am from Auburn, AL, a college town and home of Auburn University, and one thing that has always amused me since becoming a trademark lawyer is how much the University’s “Tigers” branding has suffused the community. From the Tiger Rags clothing store to the Tiger Tire & Auto repair shop to the Tiger Town mall in next-door Opelika, “Tiger” branding feels like it is everywhere.

Just for fun, I used TM TKO’s new business listing data to do a bit of research on the commonality of team nicknames in local company names in the combined statistical areas (CSAs, geographic regions set up by the Office of Management and Budget) near the university. A completely random assortment of schools and names:

Badgers near Madison: 200+
Bruins in LA: 590+
Buckeyes near Columbus: 500+
Bulldogs (or Dawgs) near Athens/Atlanta: 150+
Crimson in Boston: 20+
Huskies in Seattle: 20
Tigers near Auburn: 40+
Volunteers (or Vols) near Knoxville: 200+
Wolverines near Ann Arbor/Detroit: 140+

To do this sort of research, just go to the manual search tool and the Business Listing section.

Tracking an Industry – Real Estate

Trademark filings can be an interesting lens to look at an entire industry. Today, we’ll look at real estate. It had a huge rise in the 2000s as housing prices boomed, then the subprime mortgage crisis hit the industry hard from 2007 – 2010.

Trademark filing trends track the rise, fall, and slow return of the industry surprisingly well. I looked at 4 main classes – Class 9 (apps), 35 (), 36 (), and 42 (hosted software). Filing trends for each largely match up, although Class 36 is both the most common class for applications and has seen the most proportionate growth in the post-2013 rebound.

The filing uptick before 2007 is clear, and followed by the sharp, recession-induced tail that we would expect. Filings were static though 2013, and started to rebound. Class 9 and 42 (apps and websites) are the least common, which may make sense given the additional technological investment required. Class 35 (real estate sales and marketing services) were more common, and Class 36 (listing and brokerage services) by far the most.

It’s not quite clear why Class 36 applications have spiked more than other classes over the last three years. I suspected that it might be a rise in foreign applicants, especially from China, but that is not a meaningful factor.

It is interesting that trademark filings have jumped more than actual US home sales – sales dropped from more than 7 million in 2005 to a low of 4.1 million in 2008 and 2010; sales have only rebounded to around 5.5 million per year in 2017-2018.

Spring Training – Baseball Brands

Here in Nashville, we’re starting to get occasional warm days (and even more occasional dry days), and spring training baseball has arrived with the warmer weather. Our local AAA team, the Nashville Sounds, has a beautiful stadium right next to downtown, and we can’t wait for the season to start.

In honor of the boys of summer, this blog post looks at the key term in team names, and how popular they are as marks not for pro baseball teams. The research looked at singular and plural forms, which probably overcounted Reds and Nationals a bit, but at least this permitted consistent methodology. The Google Books N-gram research doesn’t try to exclude baseball content in the same way, so marks like RED SOX aren’t screen for non-baseball use in the same way.

Twins, Angels, and Nationals were much more common than the median in both lists, with Rays, Athletics, Tigers, Rangers, Pirates, Reds, and Giants substantially above the median on both lists, too. The terms that had the least salience in more general brand use and Google N-gram book usage were Orioles, the two colored Sox, Astros, and Diamondbacks, with Phillies, Marlins, Dodgers, Padres, and Rockies all lower than the median on both, but less dramatically so.

Braves and Brewers were a good bit more common on the brand side than n-grams, and Cubs and Cardinals were the only terms that were noticeably more common from an n-gram perspective (versus the median) than as brands.

The raw data:

Team Live
vs median
N-gram N-gram

vs median

Orioles 3 1% 0.00004 35%
Red Sox 1* 0% 0.00012 100%
Yankees 144 72% 0.00034 274%
Blue Jays 24 12% 0.00002 14%
Rays 665 331% 0.00138 1,113%
White Sox 0 0% 0.00004 34%
Tigers 1260 627% 0.00032 258%
Royals 3288 1,636% 0.00006 48%
Twins 2366 1,117% 0.00081 653%
Angels 4516 2,247% 0.00028 199%
Athletics 1313 653% 0.00025 202%
Mariners 143 71% 0.00025 102%
Rangers 867 431% 0.00029 230%
Astros 58 29% 0.00002 15%
Braves 611 304% 0.00012 97%
Nationals 17885 8,898% 0.00037 298%
Mets 201 100% 0.00008 65%
Phillies 10 5% 0.00005 40%
Marlins 138 69% 0.00002 12%
Brewers 1156 575% 0.00007 56%
Cubs 146 71% 0.00018 145%
Reds 5489 2,731% 0.00022 177%
Pirates 475 236% 0.00045 363%
Cardinals 203 101% 0.00022 177%
Dodgers 20 10% 0.00011 89%
Padres 28 14% 0.00005 40%
Giants 878 437% 0.00056 452%
Rockies 62 31% 0.00010 81%
Diamondbacks 60 30% 0.00001 6%



In-Depth Prosecution Stats – 2(d) Refusals in Class 1

At TM TKO, we are really interested in prosecution trends. Today, we are going to zoom in on one type of refusal – 2(d) likelihood of confusion refusals – in one class, International Class 1. International Class 1 primarily consists of industrial chemicals and similar products.

In particular, we wanted to test out class relationships – how strong was the likelihood of getting a refusal if the prior mark was in-class, was in a coordinated class (but not in-class), or was in an “unrelated” class (not in-class and not in a coordinated class), and how likely were the refusals to “stick” and cause the application to go abandoned?

While fewer than 12% of applications filed at any time received 2(d) citations, the 2(d) citation rate jumps to about 30% from 2014 to the present. It’s perhaps unsurprising that an increasing 2(d) rate results from an increasingly crowded registry.

As for the content of the cited marks, 2(d) refusals were not quite twice as common in the same class (i.e. the prior registration had International Class 1) than in all the classes noted by the Office as “coordinated” classes combined (any of International Classes 5, 17, 35, 42, 44, A, or B). “Out-of-class” citations – all other classes except Class 1 or any coordinated classes – were surprisingly common, with slightly more “out-of-class” citations than in-class citations, and about twice the number of out-of-class citations as coordinated class citations. There are many more marks not in one of Class 1’s coordinated classes than not, of course, which may account for the difference – currently, there are some 67,000 active filings in Class 1, just short of 950,000 in Class 1 or a coordinated class of Class 1, and more than three million neither in Class 1 nor a coordinated class of Class 1.


The importance of class and coordinated class are more apparent in looking at how frequency applicants overcome the initial 2(d) citation or citations. Applicants that receive a 2(d) citation in Class 1 or a coordinated class overcome it roughly 60% of the time; applicants that receive a 2(d) citation in an “unrelated” class are about 10% more likely to be successful. The same trends hold since 2014 as over all citations, suggesting that – at least for this class – citations in unrelated classes were noticeably less likely to hold up after further argument by the applicant.


Within the coordinated classes, refusals in Class 1 tended to be the most difficult to overcome; citations to Class 42 (traditionally a grab-bag of services, though now more narrowly defined) and Class 200 were the most likely to be overcome by applicants. Refusals in Classes A and B were less common, but comparatively difficult to overcome, perhaps because they can include especially broad descriptions of goods.

We will be looking at other classes and other prosecution in more depth over the coming weeks and months. If you have specific topics of interest, please let us know at

Athletes and Trademark Protection

Michael Jordan’s basketball greatness translated to commercial appeal and the the strong, durable AIR JORDAN brand. What about other, contemporary athletes?

This blog post looks at the brand protection sought and obtained by major athletes in the US, and describes some common practices and trends. For convenience, we’ll look at the 10 highest paid players in the four major sports leagues in the US, plus high-profile figures from other sports, and limit the inquiry to the US trademark registry. Only active athletes were used. We searched for the athlete’s name as a mark (both names together or first or last if they were distinctive) plus, if we found one and it was held by a corporate entity, we searching for that corporate entity as well. We have included both salary and endorsement data, to see if one was more highly correlated to trademark filings than the other.

Trademark filing volume was quite a bit higher for stars with substantial endorsements – it had a correlation of about 0.47 with the number of trademark filings; the salary correlation of 0.02 was comparatively minimal. It certainly appears that, outside of shoes and sports equipment, most of the value of an athlete’s “brand” is in their recognizable endorsement rather than in selling branded products. Nevertheless, filing frequency rose with endorsement income, as an understandable effort to protect that consumer recognition above and beyond the protections provided by right of publicity law.

The most striking examples of the correlation between endorsement value and trademark filings were in the NFL – defensive stars Khalil Mack and Aaron Darnold made a pittance in endorsements compared to offensive stars – quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady, but also wideout Odell Beckham Jr. Even Alex Smith made significantly more than either defensive star, and Jimmy Garoppolo made more than Darnold. Only Brady had significant numbers of trademark filings; Rodgers, Garoppolo, and Cousins all had a couple, and Brees’ name was used in a filing by AdvoCare with his permission.

Endorsements in the NBA were far more significant than in any other major US league, and more widely distributed, with seven stars making over $10,000,000 in endorsements and others close behind. International stars in soccer, tennis, and golf did similarly well. Six of the top ten NBA players in earnings had at least one active trademark application or registration in the US, too. Only three soccer stars passed the $10 million mark, while five tennis stars (the Big Four plus Kei Nishikori and Serena Williams) did. So did four golfers, all men.

Endorsements and trademark filings were lowest in the NHL and MLB. The top hockey players, Sidney Crosby, Alex Ovechkin, and Connor McDavid, all made under $5 million in endorsements. None had US trademark filings, although perhaps their Canadian endorsements are worth more. Baseball players had a few more filings, but even less lucrative endorsements, perhaps because the sport tends to generate mainly regional allegiances instead of national interest in the sport as such.

The content of the trademark filings were a mix of merchandised goods and charitable services. Perhaps the most interesting was an amateur sports app created by Justin Verlander. Individuals filed a bit under half of the applications (although some applicants later filed under a business entity too), and a couple granted permissions to file to third parties – Brees, mentioned above, and Albert Pujols, who had partnered with a local hospital. Charitable foundations filed about a tenth of the applications.


League Player Salary Endorsements US TMs Owner League correlation -0.108384656
NFL Aaron Rodgers $66,900,000 $9,000,000 2 ACR Ventures LLC Salary correlation 0.014802715
NFL Matt Ryan $52,500,000 $5,000,000 0 Endorsements correlation 0.475685934
NFL Jimmy Garoppolo $42,600,000 $500,000 2 Yee & Durbin Sports LLC
NFL Khalil Mack $41,000,000 $750,000 0 League covariance -1.472222222
NFL Aaron Darnold $40,900,000 $250,000 0 Salary covariance 1797753.333
NFL Alex Smith $40,000,000 $1,000,000 0 Endorsements covariance 50763155.56
NFL Drew Brees $27,000,000 $13,000,000 1 AdvoCare International, L.P.
NFL Tom Brady $15,000,000 $14,000,000 33 TEB Capital Management, Inc.
NFL Odell Beckham Jr. $21,500,000 $6,500,000 0 Odell Beckham Sr. filed for OBJ in 2016, but it is abandoned
NFL Kirk Cousins $26,000,000 $1,500,000 2 Kirk Cousins
NBA LeBron James $33,300,000 $52,000,000 38 LeBron James
NBA Stephen Curry $34,700,000 $42,000,000 4 Wardell Stephen Curry
NBA Kevin Durant $25,000,000 $33,000,000 5 Kevin Durant Charity Foundation
NBA James Harden $28,300,000 $20,000,000 0
NBA Russell Westbrook $28,500,000 $19,000,000 13 Russell Westbrook Enterprises, Inc.
NBA Damian Lillard $26,200,000 $14,000,000 1 Damian Lillard
NBA Blake Griffin $29,500,000 $6,000,000 0
NBA Giannis Antetokounmpo $22,500,000 $13,000,000 4 Giannis Antetokounmpo
NBA Carmelo Anthony $26,200,000 $7,000,000 0 The Carmelo Anthony Foundation, Inc. (2 abandoned)
NBA Anthony Davis $23,800,000 $9,000,000 0 Anthony Marshon Davis, Jr. (1 abandoned)
NHL Connor McDavid $15,000,000 $4,000,000 0
NHL John Tavares $15,900,000 $1,400,000 0
NHL Carey Price $15,000,000 $600,000 0
NHL Alexander Ovechkin $10,000,000 $4,500,000 0 Alexander Ovechkin (2 abandoned)
NHL Sidney Crosby $10,000,000 $4,000,000 0
NHL Jonathan Toews $12,000,000 $1,700,000 0 Jonathan Toews Enterprises, Inc. (1 abandoned)
NHL Jamie Benn $13,000,000 $100,000 0
NHL Patrick Kane $12,000,000 $350,000 0
NHL Anze Kopitar $12,000,000 $60,000 0
NHL John Carlson $12,000,000 $50,000 0
MLB Mike Trout $32,300,000 $2,500,000 0
MLB Clayton Kershaw $33,800,000 $800,000 2 Kershaw Management, LLC
MLB David Price $30,700,000 $650,000 0
MLB Miguel Cabrera $30,500,000 $500,000 3 Jose Miguel Cabrera (3 abandoned)
MLB Yoenis Cespedes $29,500,000 $500,000 0
MLB Justin Verlander $29,000,000 $1,000,000 1 Justin Verlander (amateur sports app)
MLB Giancarlo Stanton $28,200,000 $3,200,000 0 Giancarlo Stanton (1 abandoned)
MLB Albert Pujols $27,000,000 $1,000,000 0 Two apps for a health center filed by a hospital
MLB Felix Hernandez $27,300,000 $400,000
MLB Joey Votto $25,300,000 $250,000 0 Joey Votto Foundation (1 abandoned)
Tennis Roger Federer $12,200,000 $65,000,000 0 2 abandoned
Tennis Rafael Nadal $14,400,000 $27,000,000 4 Aspemir SL
Tennis Kei Nishikori $1,600,000 $34,600,000 0
Tennis Novak Djokovic $1,500,000 $22,000,000 5 Novak Djokovic
Tennis Serena Williams $62,000 $18,000,000 4 Serena Williams (several abandoned) / Aneres, LLC
Tennis Caroline Wozniacki $7,000,000 $6,000,000 0
Tennis Grigor Dmitrov $6,700,000 $6,000,000 0
Tennis Andy Murray $1,000,000 $10,500,000 2 77 Management Limited
Tennis Sloane Stephens $5,700,000 $5,500,000 0
Tennis Garvine Muguruza $5,500,000 $5,500,000
Golf Tiger Woods $1,300,000 $42,000,000 16 ETW Corp.
Golf Phil Mickelson $4,300,000 $37,000,000 6 Mickelson, Inc.
Golf Jordan Spieth $11,200,000 $30,000,000 0
Golf Rory McIlllroy $3,700,000 $34,000,000 0
Golf Justin Thomas $21,000,000 $5,000,000 0
Soccer Lionel Messi $84,000,000 $27,000,000 0
Soccer Christiano Ronaldo $61,000,000 $47,000,000 16 Christiano Ronaldo
Soccer Neymar $73,000,000 $17,000,000 0 Neymar Sport e Marketing s/s Ltda (1 abandoned)
Soccer Gareth Bale $28,600,000 $6,000,000 0
Soccer Paul Pogba $25,000,000 $4,500,000 0
Soccer Oscar $25,900,000 $1,500,000 0
Soccer Wayne Rooney $22,000,000 $5,000,000 0
Soccer Luis Suarez $19,900,000 $7,000,000

Trademark Protections for Podcasts

Inspired by last week’s blog about clearance searches, which used the podcast “Cocaine and Rhinestones” as an example, I was curious about how frequently major podcasts were seeking protection for their names. To do so, I reviewed the top 100 podcasts on iTunes as of today. That won’t identify the 100 most enduringly popular podcasts, but it’s fine as a snapshot of a large group of successful podcasts.


Under half of this select group – 43% – have active pending trademark applications or trademark registrations with the USPTO. The most active filers are larger media organizations or those longstanding radio shows like NPR, TED, or the Dave Ramsey Show. More independent podcasts were considerably less likely to have filed.

Apple’s categorizations are a bit more rigorous than randomly assigned numbers, but not much, so the “Subject” category is all over the map. True crime podcasts seem to fall into one of about six categories, and many others are almost as arbitrary. For a representative example, TED Talks Daily is in Education, and TED Radio Hour in Technology.


Full data is included below. This is just a snapshot of the current iTunes top 100, which is almost certainly not representative of podcasts across the board. These are likely to be larger and more successful, and thus more likely than average to be the subject of trademark filings. Some of these with earlier registration dates are registered for radio services or something very closely related; they’re still included below. Interestingly, a few newer independent podcasts filed applications that included a bunch of merchandising goods but not the podcast proper. It’s possible that that lines up more directly with the podcaster’s revenue, but, at least as of 2015, advertisers paid a premium for podcast listeners over traditional radio listeners, and the total podcast advertising market has only grown since then.

Rank Podcast Subject Filed Counsel
1 Oprah’s Master Class: The Podcast Society & Culture Abandoned


Filed 2015

Jessica Rothstein
2 Fatal Voyage: The Mysterious Death of Natalie Wood TV & Film No  
3 The Wilderness News & Politics Abandoned


4 Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History History 5334719

Filed 2017

Frank Curci
5 The Joe Rogan Experience Comedy No  
6 The Daily News & Politics 87791592 Jordan LaVine
7 Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard Comedy No  
8 Getting Curious with Jonathan Van Ness Society & Culture No  
9 Stuff You Should Know Society & Culture 3983155

Filed 2011

Jim Vana
10 Hidden Brain Science & Medicine 4042777

Filed 2010

11 VIEWS with David Dobrik and Jason Nash Comedy No  
12 Serial News & Politics 86454424



Filed 2014

Sean Fifield
13 Revisionist History Society & Culture 5259072

Filed 2016

14 My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark Comedy 5519542

Filed 2017


Justin Sobodash
15 Pull Up with CJ McCollum Professional No  
16 Kickass News News & Politics No  
17 This American Life Personal Journals 2266765 and more

Filed 1998

Sean Fifeld
18 TED Talks Daily Education 3766908

and more

Filed 2009

Alan Taboada
19 Minutes to Freedom: A Warrior’s Daily Focus on Journals and Meditations Personal Journals No  
20 Duolingo Spanish Podcast Language Courses 4588574

Filed 2014

Perry Viscounty
21 Blinking Red – The Dan Rather Podcast News & Politics No  
22 Up and Vanished News & Politics No  
23 Oprah’s SuperSoul Conversations Society & Culture 87907738

Filed 2017

Tamara Carmichael
24 S-Town Personal Journals 5323056


Filed 2017

Sean Fifeld
25 How I Built This with Guy Raz Business 5306698

Filed 2017

Janet Cullum
26 Freakonomics Radio Society & Culture 3954795

Filed 2010

Peter Fields
27 TED Radio Hour Technology 3766908

and more

Filed 2009

Alan Taboada
28 Pod Save America News & Politics 5402998

Filed 2017

Monica Richman
29 The Ben Shapiro Show News & Politics 87743876

Filed 2018

30 Up First News & Politics 87377209

Filed 2017

Janet Cullum
31 RISE podcast Business No  
32 Aaron Mahnke’s Cabinet of Curiosities History No  
33 In the Dark News & Politics No  
34 Fresh Air Arts 1683293

Filed 1992

Malcolm Stevenson
35 Something You Should Know Society & Culture No  
36 The Dave Ramsey Show Investing 3145275


Filed 2005/6

Matt Blackburn
37 Everything is Alive Society & Culture No  
38 Lore History No  
39 Business & Biceps Management & Marketing No  
40 Sword and Scale Social Sciences 5216335

Filed 2016

Heather Sapp
41 Planet Money Business 3734960

Filed 2008

Janet Cullum
42 Nobody Told Me! Self-Help No  
43 Chicks in the Office Society & Culture 87663301

Filed 2017

Elizabeth Sbardellati
44 RISE Together Self-Help 87958397

Filed 2018

Pattie Christensen
45 Radiolab Natural Sciences 3943633

Filed 2010

46 Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me! Comedy 2248094

Filed 1997

Janet Cullum
47 Broken Record Music 88049023


Filed 2018

Dan Zupnick
48 Shane And Friends Comedy No  
49 Dirty John Personal Journals No  
50 The Good Life with Stevie & Sazan Society & Culture No  
51 Last Podcast On The Left Comedy No  
52 Household Name Business No  
53 Criminal Personal Journals No  
54 Where Should We Begin? with Esther Perel Society & Culture No  
55 Stuff You Missed in History Class History No  
56 The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast Higher Education No  
57 Pardon My Take Sports & Recreation 5269331


Filed 2016

Jesse Saivar
58 Small Doses with Amanda Seales Comedy No  
59 Cover-Up History No  
60 House of Kim with Kim Zolciak TV & Film Ni  
61 Clear+Vivid with Alan Alda Society & Culture 87639462



Filed 2017

Patrice Jean
62 Entrepreneur Stories   Inspiration: Millionaire Interviews Higher Education No  
63 The Gary Vee Audio Experience Management & Marketing 5422311

Filed 2017


David Gold
64 The Tony Robbins Podcast Education 4154395

Filed 2009

John Alspaugh
65 The RFK Tapes History No  
66 The Moth Performing Arts 2674258

Filed 1997

67 Someone Knows Something News & Politics No  
68 The News & Why It Matters News & Politics No  
69 The Peter Schiff Show Podcast Investing No  
70 NPR Politics Podcast News & Politics 1053082 etc

Filed 1975

Janet Cullum
71 Passive Real Estate Investing Investing No  
72 Slow Burn History No  
73 Invisibilia Science & Medicine 4847419

Filed 2014

Janet Cullum
74 Whine Down with Jana Kramer TV & Film No  
75 Monday Morning Podcast Comedy No  
76 WTF with Marc Maron Podcast Comedy No  
77 Your Art Sucks Arts No  
78 The Tim Ferriss Show Investing No  
79 Fantasy Focus Football Professional No  
80 Freedom Empowered Society & Culture No  
81 Inappropriate Earl Comedy No  
82 Fantasy Footballers – Fantasy Football Podcast Professional 4943334

Filed 2015

83 Brown Chicken Brown Cow Podcast Sexuality No  
84 Sleep With Me | The Podcast That Puts You To Sleep Alternative Health 5373936

Filed 2017

Quinn Heraty
85 The Rachel Maddow Show News & Politics No  
86 Guys We F****d Comedy No  
87 The Breakfast Club Comedy 2137981 etc

Filed 1996

Lesia Skrypoczka
88 % Invisible Design No  
89 The Teacher’s Pet News & Politics No  
90 Happier with Gretchen Rubin Self-Help No  
91 Casefile True Crime History No  
92 Atlanta Monster Society & Culture No  
93 Jocko Podcast Management & Marketing 87895857

Filed 2018

Charles Halloran
94 Anna Faris Is Unqualified Comedy 87120326

Filed 2016


Kenneth Feinswog
95 Serial Killers Society & Culture No  
96 Curious with Josh Peck Comedy No  
97 Crimetown News & Politics 87977821


Filed 2016

Douglas Wolf
98 Why Is This Happening? with Chris Hayes News & Politics 87866775

Filed 2018

David Hazlehurst
99 The Goal Digger Podcast – Marketing, Social Media, Creative Entrepreneurship, Small Business Strategy and Branding Management & Marketing No  
100 The Science of Happiness Social Sciences No  

Immigration-Related Trademark Filings

Immigration has been in the news frequently over the past few years, and increasingly so in 2017. We took a quick look at whether the rate of immigration-related filings at the USPTO has changed markedly over the years in a way that reflected the political salience of the issue. The search was limited to a handful of immigration-related terms in the descriptions of goods and services, and is not anywhere close to a definitive count of all marks filed for immigration-related products or services. Just for one example, the search does not even try include broader descriptions of services, like “legal services,” that could encompass immigration-related services, like immigration law.

Recent years have certainly seen an uptick in immigration-related applications, surging from fifty a year in the 2000s to around 150 per year in the last three years. The following chart summarizes the increase in average yearly application rates.

immigration by year.png

While the trademark application rate for specifically immigration-related products and services has increased significantly, it has not increased in relation to the increase in overall trademark filings. The following chart normalizes both immigration-related filing activity and overall filing activity. While not exactly in lockstep, the ratios are quite similar; if anything, overall filing volumes appear to have jumped more than immigration-related filings.

immigration normalized.png

Charities’ Trademark Filings

Like any other venture, charities have trademark rights. Charities’ names and logos are important assets, and consumer confusion (especially donation-related scams) can be a significant problem for many charities. With that in mind, we took a look at how the twenty-five largest charities in the US treat their trademark portfolios.

There is as much variation in the charities’ trademark protection strategies as there is in the organizations’ charitable missions. Some, like the United Way, St. Jude, and Cru, are very active applicants with numerous trademark registrations and pending applications; others, like the Task Force for Global Health and the Patient Access Network Foundation, have little to no registry presence. There were no obvious correlations between trademark filing decisions and the nature of the charity, its geographic focus, or its religious affiliation or lack thereof.

The graph below is normalized: blue shows the charity’s revenue, red total US trademark filings, and yellow 2016 trademark filings.


For the curious, the non-normalized data follows: it includes not only the three categories charted above but also the “expense ratio” from — the percentage of revenue spent on the stated charitable goal, at least for those organizations required to publicly report that data. has many additional metrics that normalize expense ratios across different types of organizations, which may necessitate very different cost structures.

Organization Revenue Active 2016 Expense Ratio
United Way Worldwide $3,708.00 174 16 91.60%
Task Force for Global Health $3,154 0 0 not rated
Feeding America $2,150 49 3 98.50%
Salvation Army $1,904 77 2 not rated
YMCA of the USA $1,202 74 1 not rated
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital $1,181 210 14 69.20%
Food for the Poor $1,156 7 0 95.70%
Boys & Girls Clubs of America $923 32 0 81.80%
Catholic Charities USA $921 2 0 78.20%
Goodwill Industries International $902 82 7 not rated
Habitat for Humanity International $829 40 1 81.90%
World Vision $825 40 2 83.90%
American Cancer Society $810 79 6 59.90%
Patient Access Network Foundation $801 1 0 not rated
Compassion International $799 22 2 83.10%
Direct Relief $775 5 0 99.20%
Americares Foundation $740 32 2 97.90%
Lutheran Services in America $723 7 1 not rated
Nature Conservancy $646 35 4 71.20%
American Heart Association $634 97 11 78.70%
American National Red Cross $624 46 0 90.10%
Samaritan’s Purse $565 19 0 88.30%
MAP International $545 15 0 99.20%
Step Up for Students $521 0 0 98.90%
Cru $514 217 6 not rated

Marijuana-related trademark filing trends

The US Patent & Trademark Office will not register trademarks for drugs that are regulated under the Controlled Substances Act or for related paraphernalia. 21 U.S.C. §§801-971; TMEP § 907. That does not stop applicants from applying for a wide range of marijuana-related products and services, and many products that are not the drug itself nor paraphernalia are registrable. Direct registration protection for marijuana products is available via state registries. This blog post looks at filing trends in the USPTO’s federal registry.

California legalized medical marijuana in 1996, with several Oregon (1998) and Main (1999) following suit. Six states legalized medical marijuana in the 2000s and nine more did so in the 2010s. Recreational legalization began with Colorado and Washington in 2012 and has since expanded to nine more states.


Marijuana-related trademark filings on the federal level did not exactly match up with state-level legalization trends, possibly because legalization tends to require slow and bureaucratic rulemaking. Federal trademark filings started to accelerate in 2009, and really skyrocketed in 2014.

Most federal trademark filings are focused on a handful of classes. The chart below shows filings where the mark, the mark description, or the description of goods contains certain “single-purpose” marijuana-related terms. For instance, “cannabis” was included as a search term but not “joint,” whose primary use is not marijuana-related.

The key classes were:

  • Class 5 for medicines; these will presumably be almost uniformly refused under the Controlled Substances Act;
  • Class 25 for clothing; these “merchandising” or “messaging” products are generally accepted by the USPTO;
  • Classes 30-34, presumably for edibles; these also face an uphill battle under the CSA;
  • Class 35 for retail services, which will face CSA issues, and online review/recommendation services, which should be OK;
  • Class 41 for entertainment services, generally OK; and
  • Class 44 for medical services, largely on the medical marijuana side of the industry, and which generally face CSA issues.


As state-level legalization efforts continue, it is possible that Congress will amend the Controlled Substances Act to permit limited intellectual property protections for marijuana-related products and services in states where they are legal. Until then, applicants in the marijuana industry will have to seek as much federal trademark protection as they can for ancillary products or for merchandised goods, and rely on a patchwork of common-law rights and state trademark registrations to protect the brand identifies of their core products.