Tag Archives: uspto

Calendar Integration for Deadline Tracking

You can now integrate TM TKO’s new Deadlines feature with your preferred calendar. Go to a Portfolio that includes Deadline tracking, and go to the Deadlines tab. Then, in the upper-right corner, select Tools -> Calendar Feed.

On the next page, click “Start Publication.” You will get a secret address URL to your Calendar in the standard iCal format.

Calendar applications generally include the capability to subscribe to a calendar published in the iCal format with a secret address URL. Documentation for adding this iCal link to several common calendars follows:

We hope you find this calendar integration a useful addition, and helpful for keeping atop your trademark prosecution to-do list!

New! Trademark Deadline Tracking

TM TKO is excited to announce a major expansion of the functionality of its Portfolios feature. Now, in addition to built-in conflict checking and automated watch setup, all Portfolios have a “Deadline” tab. It tracks and automatically generates deadlines for more than 4,000 prosecution events, and automatically shows the next upcoming prosecution deadlines for filings in the Portfolio in any of the jurisdictions where TM TKO offers coverage: US, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, European Union IPO, France, Germany, Spain, the UK, and WIPO. Individual trademark records now also have a detailed history of past and future deadlines.

Setting up a Portfolio takes under a minute – just go to the Portfolio page. For instructions, go to the Portfolio help page or see our more detailed blog post.

Never forget a deadline with automatic updates

Attorney Portfolios that include deadline watching – a simple checkbox on your Portfolio setup page – will include automatic weekly update emails. While you sip your Monday morning coffee, go through short, actionable lists:

– deadlines due within the next period;
– deadline periods that opened in the last period; and
– deadlines that closed in the last period.

Or, hop on the TM TKO platform and view the Deadline tab for that Portfolio to get a broader horizon of upcoming deadlines. It’s simpler than ever to keep track of what you need to be doing to stay on top of your practice.

What’s the cost?

Deadline tracking via Portfolios is included in your TM TKO subscription. There is no change in price, just an increase in functionality. 

Bulk Knockout Search – Now Included at No Extra Charge

Bulk Knockout Search is now included for all subscribers with no additional charge. Bulk search lets you quickly input details for a large number of searches at once, and gives you a convenient summary report “on top” of your individual search reports. It’s a super-efficient way to run and review large numbers of reports for a brainstorming client, to effectively manage a large, catalog-type clearance project, and more.

What’s coming next?

TM TKO has many projects underway already. In 2023, TM TKO will expand the new deadline-related features, incorporate TTAB data, expand our international coverage for both search and deadline purposes, continue to advance search, and so much more. We’re looking forward to 2023 being our best year yet.

Setting up Portfolios for International Deadline Tracking

This blog post expands on TM TKO’s new Deadline tracking feature, and provides more detail about how to set up a Portfolio to get the most coverage.

Most TM TKO subscribers use Portfolios as a convenient way to set up watches for a large number of marks at one time. In the US, this is usually done using the correspondent e-mail address; in other countries, attorney or firm name are most common.

When it comes to watching, a streamlined Portfolio is the best. You want to pick a country, usually your “home” jurisdiction, as the base for all your watches — there is no point in having 6 watches for the mark XYZ, all for the same services, just because it’s registered in 6 jurisdictions.

But, Portfolios are very flexible — any search strategy can define a Portfolio. Firms that do dispute-related work for clients that have in-house counsel will often set up a Portfolio for that client based on the Owner name field.

When it comes to deadline tracking, though, you want a comprehensive Portfolio. If your work is all in one jurisdiction, you are already done — the same Portfolio for watch will work perfectly. The “Watch deadlines” option will already be turned on for you. If you’re doing international work as well, you will want a couple of additional steps. The best bet is to set up a supplementary Portfolio to just do deadline tracking.

First, at the top of the setup page, change the Home Jurisdiction to everything — hit “Select All.”

Second, at the bottom of the setup page, make sure to turn off “Watch Similarity” on this Portfolio, to make sure you don’t get a bunch of duplicate watches.

Finally, you’ll want to use two approaches to setting the membership criteria: (a) set up your usual identifier (email/firm/name) in one field, connected by an OR to (b) a group (via “add group”) where you set up a set of Owner fields with “phrase” matching, also connected by an OR. So you’ll end up with something like this:

As you need to add extra companies for international coverage, just Edit this Portfolio — “Add Rule” in the company group and add the new name.

If you have any questions or need a hand in setting up Portfolios to maximize your Deadline tracking, don’t hesitate to email us or set up a time for a web meeting from inside the platform — we are always happy to help.

Slow Examination & Petitions to Make Special

The USPTO is currently examining new applications at a much slower clip than their historical norm. Rather than expected initial examination within about 3 months of filing, now, by the Office’s own data, it’s at least 7.5 months. That time is probably overly optimistic, since a new application filed today faces an extra 7.5 months of backlog between it and first examination.

Source: https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks/

The Paris Convention provides US applicants 6 months in which to file internationally and claim the benefit of their US application, and this ends up being a de facto filing deadline for many applications filed via the Madrid Protocol. Applications filed through the Madrid Protocol provide substantial benefits to applicants, including comparatively cheap filings and convenient renewals and assignments. However, registrations issued via Madrid are dependent on the registrant’s home country application(s) or registration(s) for 5 years.

As we know, clients do not always select marks with completely clear paths towards registration. Since it’s now taking way longer for applications to receive an initial examination than the 6 months provided by the Paris Convention, what’s an applicant to do? File via Madrid with some uncertainty? File direct in-country applications?

The USPTO does have a mechanism to accelerate examination. A Petition to Make Special costs $250; if granted, it moves an application to the front of the line for examination. Per TMEP § 1710 – 1711:

A petition to make “special” must be accompanied by: (1) the fee required by 37 C.F.R. §2.6; (2) an explanation of why special action is requested; and (3) a statement of facts that shows that special action is justified. The statement of facts should be supported by an affidavit or declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.

Invoking supervisory authority under 37 C.F.R. §2.146 to make an application “special” is an extraordinary remedy that is granted only when very special circumstances exist, such as a demonstrable possibility of the loss of substantial rights. A petition to make “special” is denied when the circumstances would apply equally to a large number of other applicants.

The most common reasons for granting petitions to make “special” are the existence of actual or threatened infringement, pending litigation, or the need for a registration as a basis for securing a foreign registration.

The Office provides minimal guidance on when Petitions will be refused.

The fact that the applicant is about to embark on an advertising campaign is not considered a circumstance that justifies advancement of an application out of the normal order of examination, because this situation applies to a substantial number of applicants.

The “need for a registration as a basis for securing a foreign registration” is close, but it’s not quite what we need here. You technically don’t need a US registration to survive the Madrid pendency period, provided that you can stall out an application at the USPTO long enough. What we want the quick US examination for is really certainty.

Seeing how these requests turn out is a perfect job for TM TKO’s prosecution research tools. Go to Search and then Office Action, and we can look for documents that have both the phrases “Petition to Make Special” and “Madrid Protocol.”

This finds more than 75 documents. Some of these relate to Petition attachments that use relevant keywords, so we then tweak the search to screen those out, and end up with about 65.

Petition Decision YearGranted*Denied
*If the Petition was specifically granted or was just examined really quickly thereafter, I counted it as “granted.”

What’s up with the refusals in 2021? These start in July 2021, and the refusals all have some variation of the following:

Petitioner states within the application the need to secure a foreign registration for the above mark. Petitioner omitted the required supporting evidence, e.g., proof showing that a foreign intellectual property office requires a U.S. trademark registration in order to submit a trademark application in that country (…) from the petition.

This is fairly wild. None of the prior petitions from 2015 – 2021 had any evidence whatsoever, and some of these were filed by the exact same attorney using the same request text that had been granted before, and granted dozens of times. It’s dumb that a Petitioner would need to provide — what, a copy of an excerpt of the Madrid Protocol text?? — to the Office for the Office to recognize that the Protocol requires a home country app/reg for the dependency, since the USPTO’s own rules enforce that exact same requirement. Nevertheless, that’s apparently exactly what applicants out to do going forward.

TM TKO Announces Clearance Search Improvements

TM TKO is proud to announce a sweeping new round of innovations in its automated, in-depth clearance tool. These improvements focus on goods-and-services comparisons.

First, we have added an entirely new way of comparing key concepts between different types of products and services. Driven by leading-edge artificial intelligence, these comparisons better cut through the noise to highlight risks across classes.

Second, there is a dramatically improved classifier. In the enhanced goods and services selector tool, you will see class information and whether the description is in the USPTO’s Trademark ID Manual, helping you select the best and most accurate set of descriptions for your search.

You will see benefits from the new classifier in substantive search outcomes, too. Newly filed applications with incorrect classifications will take into account both the applicant-assigned class and the “correct” class from the classifier, upping scoring accuracy and search quality on even accidentally or intentionally misfiled applications. You will see similar benefits in the scoring of older registrations where the “correct” classification for the relevant goods or services has changed since the registration date.

How will these changes impact the appearance of your report? The most conceptually-related goods or services will score substantially higher than before in the table of most reports. You will also see these results visualized further to the right in your results scatterplot.

Finally, we are retiring the “retail” and “software” tabs in the goods-and-services selector for the Knockout tool. Now, a search for a mark for services like “retail shoe store services” will do an excellent job highlighting related products and services without the need for either the old retail tab or putting in multiple descriptions of goods or services. We have already updated existing searches and watches that used those tabs to appropriately take advantage of the new methodology; you won’t need to do anything.

We’re thrilled to have these improvements integrated into our system, and hope you find them as exciting as we do!

Re-Examination and Expungement under the TMA: a Very Early Look

The Trademark Modernization Act created two new ex parte procedures – re-examination and expungement. To oversimplify slightly: the former is intended to correct botched or incomplete examination; the latter is an ex parte version of a non-use cancellation action.

The Office Actions generated by these new procedures are unusual in that they have short turnaround times — 3 month response deadlines, extendible once for 1 month. Unsurprisingly, given the current delays the USPTO is seeing across the trademark landscape, progress is slow.

# Filed# Deficiencies# Office Actions# of Registrant Responses
Dec. 2021




Jan. 2022


2 (2 responses)***


Feb. 2022




Numbers are as of March 2, 2022; there may be some lag between submission and the USPTO processing the various files.

* All three were basically the same, for variations of the same mark.

** One of the fifteen was withdrawn.

*** One was not instituted at all, without even generating a deficiencies notice. It was submitted by an unrepresented petitioner. Frankly, I’m not sure it was substantially different from others that did get a chance to amend via the deficiency process. The petitioner got a bit of a raw deal.

**** Our one example was a response filed by an unrepresented applicant; the response does not attach an example of use

If you need to file a re-examination or expungement request, the relevant forms are available here. It looks like registrants will use a standard Post-Registration Office Action Response form, but we’ll see if those end up being the same file type or not — none have been filed yet.

Finally, if you need to do research about how others are filing or responding to re-examination or expungement requests, you can do that on TM TKO. In an Office Action search, you can select Document Types that are relevant to Re-Examination or Expungement proceedings: Petition for Expungement/ReExam form, Response to Petition Inquiry-Expunge/ReExam, and 30-day Inquiry Letter to Petitioner. The Registrant’s Office Action responses will also be searchable, whether as a unique file type or batched with normal Post-Registration Office Action Responses remains to be determined.

Trends in 2(c) refusals

For today’s blog post, we’ll take a look at 2(c) refusals. Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act provides that registration should be barred where a mark:

Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.

Looking at just US-based applicants, 2(c) refusals apply in about 2% of outgoing Office Actions. Still, given the large numbers of applications in 2021, that’s almost 4,000 2(c) refusals to date. Roughly 100 of those are for Presidentially-related marks, in a roughly even mix of Biden-Harris-related and Trump-related filings, and a smattering of Obama-related ones still percolating around from the especially stubborn. As a group, these have to be some of the lowest-quality applications that the USPTO has to slog through. Most of these arguably don’t function as marks anyway and/or would get refused on “failure to function” grounds or under 2(a) anyway, even if 2(c) was not a part of the statute.

That still leaves us with quite a number of 2(c) refusals. We reviewed all of them, and roughly 70% are “traditional” sorts of 2(c) refusals — the actual name of or a mark incorporating the actual name of a person (BROCK LESNAR or GLORIA SERVICES or GILLIE CHESTER’S NASHVILLE HOT!), or their name-like pseudonym or nickname (ZØ MARIE or STEWIE). A few are a bit further afield from being name-like, like PRINCE OF BLUE or ALKALINE VEGGIE MOMMIE. (Occasionally, the Examiners have to be careful about their phrasing to avoid theological discussions about whether 2(c) should apply to IAMGAWD, a DJ.) Refusals based on the picture element alone are pretty uncommon, but do happen occasionally, especially for more lifelike portraits where a face is more clearly identifiable, as in this application for LATINX POP LAB, where the Examiner did a Google search for the applicant, noted the likeness, and asked for a consent statement.

Drawing: 90153883

Plenty of marks generate 2(c) inquiries where the Examiner just can’t tell, like TALDE, or that sound name-like but the applicant says do not identify a specific living individual, like LINGLEE.

Class 41 entertainment-related content (live events, etc.) and associated goods like musical recordings, etc. are far more represented in 2(c) refusals than the general application pool. Over one quarter of 2(c) refusals are in Class 41.

If you ever need to research 2(c) refusals or effective responses, you can use TM TKO’s Office Action research to dive deep into the issue, and find effective responses on similar facts, or that have convinced your Examiner, or both!

The Rise of IP Clinics

The USPTO runs a program to allow law school clinics to engage in practice before the Office. It provides law students great practice experience while they are still in law school, and is generally acclaimed as a great success. The Office most recently expanded the roster of IP clinics in 2016-2017, adding twenty law schools in mid-2008. The program also provides for expedited examination, so students can both file and handle and prosecution issues in a single academic semester or quarter.

The Office prepared a 2016 report on clinic activity from 2009-2016. Over those seven years, 2,000 trademark applications were filed by clinics as counsel, and 2,700 students were involved in clinics (both trademark and patent work). The

At TM TKO, we have been getting our set of law clinic users (it’s free for clinical / academic use!) ready for the semester, and the clinic program has been on our mind. So, we ran some updated numbers. These numbers are not going to match the USPTO’s figures from the clinics’ biannual reporting requirements. We do not have access to that data. Instead, our estimates based on the use of email addresses listed in the USPTO’s clinic list. Some clinics will use other emails for their USPTO communications, and our search methodology will not pull in those results. So, don’t get too hung up on specific numbers — this data only shows general trends.

The number of clinic-based filings per year have continued to rise, from the 400-500 range to over 650 last year. Much of that rise appears to be due to the expanded roster of active clinics. There is also a pretty wide range of trademarks being handled, from just a couple per year for some clinics to fifty or more for a couple of very ambitious (and busy) clinics. We don’t have student numbers for each clinic, so it’s impossible to say whether these are just more heavily attended or doing more filings per student.

IP Clinics are providing students valuable opportunities to understand the nuts and bolts of trademark practice and to build client relationship management skills. Both are crucial in running an active IP practice, and the USPTO’s clinical programs are giving today’s law students a great head start on practice that was not available ten years ago.

Participating Law Schools201920182017
American University, Washington College of Law954
Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Conner College of Law614642
Baylor Law School5128
Boston College Law School748
California Western School of Law171617
Fordham University School of Law340
Howard Universtity000
Indiana University Maurer School of Law212412
Indiana University McKinney School of Law001
Lewis & Clark Law School131714
Liberty University School of Law100
Lincoln Law School of San Jose000
New York Law School6100
North Carolina Central University School of Law1268
Northeastern University School of Law1034
Northwestern Pritzker School of Law312122
Roger Williams University School of Law201
Rutgers Law School323
Seattle University School of Law1228
South Texas College of Law Houston262923
Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law15310
Southern University Law Center310
Suffolk University Law School21015
Syracuse University College of Law71013
Texas A&M University School of Law954
The George Washington University School of Law894
Thomas Jefferson School of Law71613
Tulane University Law School522
UIC John Marshall Law School81314
UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law201313
University of Akron School of Law000
University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law21108
University of California, Irvine School of Law500
University of Connecticut School of Law171521
University of Detroit Mercy School of Law000
University of Idaho College of Law514
University of Maryland School of Law544025
University of Miami School of Law1972
University of Nebraska College of Law1978
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Law16105
University of Notre Dame Law School13136
University of Pennsylvania Law School2050
University of Puerto Rico School of Law001
University of Richmond School of Law192716
University of San Diego School of Law171516
University of San Francisco School of Law335626
University of St. Thomas School of Law28101
University of Tennesee College of Law141016
University of Washington School of Law6215
Vanderbilt Law School201412
Western New England University School of Law334

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.

Design search and watch – new to TM TKO!

Design Search Guide

TM TKO now provides high-quality design search reports in addition to word mark searches. Go to the “Knockouts” page and pick the “Design Mark” tab. You will see our design search interface:


Entering a search

You need to enter at least one design element to search in either the “Design Description” or the “Design Codes” fields; these fields can be combined to further prioritize results.

The “Design Description” box is free-text, and searches what on TESS is the [de] (mark description) field. Each term is searched separately as a keyword, and results hitting on all keywords are prioritized over those matching fewer keywords.

The “Design Codes” tab auto-fills as you type, based on what in TESS would be the [dd] (design description) and [dc] (design code) fields. You can enter the six-digit design codes with or without periods, i.e. 050106 or 05.01.06, or you can also start typing “stump” to select the same design description and design code without having to reference the design search manual. Click on the entry you want or scroll down to the item and hit enter.


After selecting the design phrase and code, it will appear below the design search bar. Click “x” to remove any phrase.


As with design descriptions, you can enter more than one design code in a single search.

Enter Goods and Services

You need to enter at least one good or service to run a search.

Under “Goods and Services”, start typing a product or service. TM TKO auto-suggests the most common goods and services on the USPTO registry for you; we are able to provide the best results when you pick more common terms that accurately describe your client’s product or service. When you see one you like, click on it to add it to your list. There is no need to worry about class – TM TKO will automatically assign the class for each good or service you enter based on registry data, and you can add as few or as many terms as you like per search.

Here is the goods and services auto-suggester in action:


Here is what it looks like after you have selected goods and services:


This search would focus on International Classes 32 and 33, the classes for the two goods entered, and, as space allows, also highlight very similar marks in coordinated classes. As with design codes, click “x” to drop a given good or service from the search.

Presenting Results

Design search reports are a bit more traditional than our word mark search reports, focusing on a prioritized table of results. In-class results hitting on all design search criteria are prioritized before searches hitting on fewer criteria. If you searched using design codes, as you scroll down the results list, you will also see in-class results with similar but not identical design codes.

Unlike word mark search report, all design search results include the full mark description, design phrases, and design codes in the “Mark” field.


Tips and Tricks

– Limiting your search to a single design keyword will provide fewer results in-class and, for uncommon terms, more results in coordinated classes and for related goods.

For example, searching the Design Description field for “mastodon” for “luggage” yields only two results, both outside of International Class 18 (coordinated classes or statistically related goods). Doing the same search but with the “elephants, mammoths” [030301] design phrase and code added to the search yields nearly forty in-class results for those very similar animals, plus some additional results with other large savannah animals like giraffes and rhinos that have similar design codes. Including “mammoth” in the “Design Description” field further highlights results containing “mammoth” in the mark description, bringing them to the top of the chart above the “elephant” marks for easier review.

– Visual similarity between designs is often a judgment call. For most design search projects, we suggest running a separate search for each class of products or services that your client plans to offer, and to use both the most relevant design code(s) plus relevant keywords in the design description field to highlight the most relevant marks in the results table.

– To include abandoned applications and expired or canceled registrations, click the “Include all inactive filings” radio button near the “Knockout Search” button.

Any Questions?

Please don’t hesitate to email support@tmtko.com with any questions! We are happy to help.

Anatomy of an Office Action Response #4


What is this series?

We break down a recently-filed, successful Office Action Response, looking at the case law, evidence, and strategic decisions that made it a success.

Today’s post focuses on two applications that received specimen refusals.

The Office Actions – SCOUT BEER and HEARTCRAFTED

Today, we are looking successful Office Action Responses filed in the course of prosecuting applications to register the marks SCOUT BEER and for HEARTCRAFTED, both for beer in Class 32, Ser. Nos. 86664817 and 86752008. AJS Beverages, Inc. (SCOUT BEER) is represented by Andy Harris of Northwest Corporate Law LLC and Fior di Sole, LLC (Heartcrafted) is represented by Katy Bailse of Reed Smith.

Both applicants claimed use under Section 1(a) of the Lanham Act prior to this Office Action, and both provided photos of use of the marks in retail environments – a SCOUT BEER beer garden and a HEARTCRAFTED sign in an interior bar. Both are shown below.

Scout Beer:


The Office Action for SCOUT BEER took the position that the mark shown was SCOUT BEER GARDEN, not SCOUT BEER. The applicant could certainly argue “an applicant has some latitude in selecting the mark it wants to register,” TMEP §807.12(d), that “garden” will be perceived as non-distinctive and just a place where SCOUT BEER is served.

The Office Action for HEARTCRAFTED also raised a specimen issue, but a different concern: that the mark was not used in sufficient proximity to beer, which is not shown on the bar photograph, and suggests that it would be perceived as for bar services in any event. The applicant could have argued, with justification, that the signage was a “display associated with the actual goods at their point of sale.” See TMEP §904.03. If the mark was shown in the applicant’s own brewpub bar, it makes sense that the mark would not just refer to a restaurant/bar service but the applicant’s house beers as well.

The Office Action Responses

While both applicants could reasonably pushed back, neither chose to file arguments. Why? Most likely because of cost. Submitting alternative photos provided by the client takes just a few minutes, while arguing the points of law requires much more time to research and draft.

The Office Action Response for SCOUT BEER provided several photos of the SCOUT BEER mark in use on beer kegs.


The Office Action Response for HEARTCRAFTED did the same, and also provided beer labels.


Both were accepted.


Silence can be golden. The quickest and cheapest way to a good result isn’t always via argument.

October 2016 USPTO Trademark Leaderboard

Each month we highlight the USPTO’s top filing trademark applicants and attorneys.

Top Applicants
1 Joy Mangano 67
2 Maison Joseph Battat, Ltd./Ltee. 60
3 E. & J. Gallo Winery 55
5 Noorani Trading Inc. 36
7 L18 Holdings, Inc. 30
7 Shammas, Milo 30
7 Sichuan Edai.com Financial Information Service Co., Ltd. 30
8 Eli Lilly and Company 25
9 Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC 24
9 MS Resort Owner, LLC 24
10 Base 1836, LLC 22
11 CCL Label, Inc. 21
11 Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation 21
11 The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System 21
12 Hasbro, Inc. 20
12 Paranjape Schemes Construction Limited 20
14 Interplay Entertainment Corp. 18
14 Lunatech, LLC 18
14 Novartis AG 18
14 Novavax, Inc. 18
14 Phase One Consulting Group, LLC 18
14 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 18
15 Department of the Army 17
15 Gander Mountain Direct, Inc. 17
15 Golden Bell Entertainment, LLC. 17
15 Vizuri Health Sciences LLC 17
16 Accepted Group, Inc. 16
16 Bristol-Myers Squibb Company 16
16 Grovo Learning, Inc. 16
17 American International Industries 15
17 APEAM A.C. 15
17 Branded LLC 15
17 Del Vino Vineyards, Inc. 15
17 Foundry Distilling Company, LLC 15
17 Google Inc. 15
17 Skip Hop, Inc. 15
18 DBA BPI Health 14
18 DBA Phantom Fireworks 14
18 Digital Gaming Corporation Limited 14
18 Expo Universe Holdings LLC 14
18 Field 16, LLC dba Heavy 16 14
18 Forjas Taurus S.A. 14
18 Pentathlon Institute, Inc. 14
18 The Procter & Gamble Company 14
19 Benchmade Knife Co., Inc. 13
19 Brand Services and Holdings LLC 13
19 BYO Records, Inc. 13
19 Chatham Imports, Inc. 13
19 Minority Business Development Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce 13
19 Morell, Joshua F 13
19 Welspun India Limited 13
20 BBCC, LLC 12
20 Beleza Natural Cabelereiros Ltda. 12
20 DBA Bentoli, Inc. 12
20 Death to Genres, LLC 12
20 GS1 US, Inc. 12
20 House Advantage, LLC 12
20 Jackson Health Foundation 12
20 JNJ Enterprises, LLC 12
20 MATTEL, INC. 12
20 Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. 12
20 Nant Holdings IP, LLC 12
20 Stage Two Inc. 12
20 The Foundation for a Better Life 12
20 The S. Hekemian Group, LLC 12
20 UHS of Delaware, Inc. 12
20 Woodbolt Distribution, LLC 12
20 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. 12
21 Brain Brew Ventures 3.0 LLC 11
21 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 11
21 expHand 11
21 HBI Branded Apparel Enterprises, LLC 11
21 Hollander Sleep Products, LLC 11
21 Jill Snow 11
21 Lucomm Technologies Inc. 11
21 REAN Cloud LLC 11
21 The Burchard Group LLC 11
21 Tri-Coastal Design Group, Inc. 11
21 Wizards of the Coast LLC 11
22 Deere & Company 10
22 Fruit Farm of the Spirit, LLC 10
22 Ghost Herbal Concepts Ltd. 10
22 HDS IP Holding, LLC 10
22 Hiller, LLC 10
22 Holland America Line – USA Inc. 10
22 OSN LABS L.L.C. 10
22 Randa Luggage, LLC 10
22 Sunbeam Products, Inc. 10
22 TeamMD Holdings, Inc. 10
22 The Lion Forge, LLC 10
22 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 10
22 WestRock MWV, LLC 10
23 BPI Sports 9
23 Capital One Financial Corporation 9
23 Constellation Brands U.S. Operations, Inc 9
23 Gaia Earth Sciences Limited 9
23 Gorongosa Restoration Project, Inc. 9
23 HTC Corporation 9
23 Lady A Entertainment LLC 9
23 LF, LLC 9
23 MomoIP LLC 9
23 Performance Fabrics, Inc. 9
23 Snap Inc. 9
23 Springfield, Inc. 9
23 Sprout Foods, Inc. 9
23 The Window Channel, Inc. 9
23 Too Faced Cosmetics, LLC 9
23 Yanhuang Dongfang(Beijing) Healthcare Technology Co., Ltd 9
24 Abbyson Living LLC 8
24 Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. 8
24 Apex Clearing Corporation 8
24 Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. 8
24 Autodesk, Inc. 8
24 Baily International, Inc. 8
24 Bristol Bay Native Corporation 8
24 Dealer Market Exchange PR LLC 8
24 Desert Botanical Garden, Inc. 8
24 DMG Entertainment, LLC 8
24 Eddyline Brewery LLC 8
24 Elk River Distillery 8
24 Fresh Direct, LLC 8
24 HBI Branded Apparel Limited, Inc. 8
24 Ingles Markets, Inc. 8
24 Le Technology, Inc. 8
24 Mary Kay Inc. 8
24 Medici Online Group, LLC 8
24 Modelo MKT de México, S. de R.L. de C.V. 8
24 NBA Properties, Inc. 8
24 Ole Smoky Distillery, LLC 8
24 Parkell, Inc. 8
24 Playform, Inc. 8
24 Sentera, LLC 8
24 Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. 8
24 Spinning Wheel IP, LLC 8
24 Sunil and Nita Wadhwani Family Foundation 8
24 Sun King Brewing Company, LLC 8
24 Univision Communications Inc. 8
24 Vandegrift Forwarding Company, Inc. 8
24 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. 8
25 ADEY HOLDINGS (2008) Limited 7
25 AGC, LLC 7
25 Alibaba Group Holding Limited 7
25 Bayer Intellectual Property GmbH 7
25 Big 5 Productions, LLC 7
25 Boulder Organic Foods, LLC 7
25 Bronco Wine Company 7
25 CBS Studios Inc. 7
25 Corrections Corporation of America 7
25 David and Lily Penn, Inc. 7
25 DBA Devil’s Canyon Brewing Company 7
25 DreamWorks Animation L.L.C. 7
25 Dunbar Armored, Inc. 7
25 Edison Grain, Inc. 7
25 firstSTREET for Boomers and Beyond, Inc. 7
25 Glaxo Group Limited 7
25 Glitzhome Corporation (Shanghai), Ltd. 7
25 Gooder Labs, LLC 7
25 Haschel Holdings Limited 7
25 Hogsalt Holding, LLC 7
25 Indiana Secondary Market for Education Loans, Inc. 7
25 Ion Media Networks, Inc. 7
25 Kizzang, LLC 7
25 Konami Gaming, Inc. 7
25 Mahindra Motor Vehicle Manufacturing Limited 7
25 Millstone Spirits Group LLC 7
25 Mobilitie, LLC 7
25 Navajo Manufacturing Company 7
25 Netflix Studios, LLC 7
25 OG IP Holdings, LLC 7
25 Renaissance Media Solutions LLC 7
25 Smith System Manufacturing Company 7
25 SweetWorks Confections LLC 7
25 THC Industries, LLC 7
25 The Old Bushmills Distillery Company Limited 7
25 The Poke Shack Management Group 7
25 The Sweat Shop Group, LLC 7
25 The William Carter Company 7
25 Velaasa LLC 7
25 Velocity Mobile LLC 7
25 ZoomEssence, Inc. 7
Top Attorneys
1 Ruth Khalsa 176
2 Devan Orr 141
3 Renuka Rajan 117
4 Marcos Eduardo Garciaacosta 107
5 Laura Figel 78
6 Alex Patel 63
6 Joshua M. Gerben 63
6 Thomas Dunlap 63
7 Jeffrey M. Furr 55
7 Kristi W. Whalen 55
8 Andrew S. Langsam 53
9 Lawrence E. Abelman 46
10 Leo G. Lenna 43
11 Leo Lenna 41
12 Nicole Gage 40
13 Jessica Tam 38
14 Christopher J. Day 37
14 J. Rodgers Lunsford III 37
15 Samen chen 36
16 Lorie K. Mallari 35
16 Peter D. Vogl & Kristin S. Cornuelle 35
17 Sandy Lipkin 33
18 Catherine M.C. Farrelly 32
18 Gene Bolmarcich 32
18 Keesonga Gore 32
19 H. Michael Drumm 31
19 John S. Egbert 31
19 Luke Brean 31
20 Mary Margaret L. O’Donnell 30
20 Natasha Shabani 30
20 Stacie K. Smith 30
21 Camille M. Miller 28
22 Erik M. Pelton 27
23 Allison Kerndt 25
23 Li-Jen Shen 25
24 Stephen L. Baker 24
25 Bassam N. Ibrahim 23
25 Curt Handley 23
25 Darren M. Geliebter 23
25 Jeffrey R. Cadwell 23
25 Jerry Zhang 23
25 Jill J. Chalmers 23
25 Jonathan Grant Morton 23
25 Kao H. Lu 23
25 Mark D. Passler 23
25 Richard Y. Kim 23
25 Shawn R. Farmer 23