One of The Most Expensive Mistakes Brands Make: Filing in the Wrong Classes

Trademark classes were once fairly straightforward for traditional businesses. If you sold clothing, you filed in Class 25. If you ran a marketing agency, you filed in Class 35. The relationship between what your business did and how it was classified was predictable. Nowadays, this clarity and predictability are slowly disappearing.

This is because modern brands rarely operate within a single category. For example, a fitness startup doesn't just sell supplements, but also runs a subscription app, publishes digital content, offers coaching services, and hosts paid community webinars. Similarly, a creator-led business might combine merchandise, live events, and licensing deals all under one brand. Classifying all of these uses correctly is where many trademark applications begin to fall apart. Furthermore, the mistake isn't that founders file too few or too many classes, but rather that they file the wrong classes, for the wrong reasons. This happens in two ways:

Some applicants try to cover everything "just in case." The logic is: if the brand expands later, why not claim all possible goods and services now? On paper, broad filings feel safer, but in practice, they often weaken the trademark and its protection. For example, in jurisdictions like the United States, trademarks must be backed by real commercial use. Filing for goods or services you don't actually offer can lead to office actions, audits, or future non-use challenges (not to mention each additional class costs extra from the get-go). Later, often when the brand becomes valuable, portions of the registration can be canceled due to inactivity.

On the other hand, in Europe, overly broad filings can raise bad-faith concerns if there's no genuine intent to commercially use the mark across all claimed classes. In this case, even if the application initially registers, enforcement becomes more difficult when your actual business doesn't match what's listed in your goods and services. This leaves you with a trademark that looks expensive, but can’t be defended.

Other brands file trademark applications that are too narrow and end up on the exact opposite side—with a trademark that only protects specific parts of their business. This is especially common with digital-first businesses. A SaaS startup may file only for their software services, believing that's their core offering, but in reality, these brands are often already used on merchandise, digital content, educational services, or physical products tied to their core platform.

Later, when a third party comes along and files the same or a similar mark in those adjacent classes, the original owner is forced into a difficult position. They either need to prove prior unregistered rights, pursue costly enforcement, or rebrand parts of their business. All of which are more costly than simply adding additional goods and services to their initial filing.

If commercial use is evident or expansion is already on the horizon, applicants need to align their protection with how the brand is actually operating.

Modern brands encounter this problem more often because trademark classes were designed for simpler business models. In contrast, today's brands constantly blur the lines between classes.

Founders also tend to consider trademarks either too early, which means applications are based on pitch decks, investor narratives, or long-term visions rather than current and near-term commercial use; or too late, which means they haven’t filed for trademarks in key classes, leaving room for similar third-party marks to be registered first.

This mismatch between how businesses describe themselves and how they actually operate is where many applications break down. IP offices care far less about the vision for the brand and far more about its actual commercial use.

To help you avoid these mistakes and decide which classes truly matter, we recommend you take a step back and answer a few grounded questions:

These questions help narrow the focus and prevent both overreach and underprotection. Remember, the goal isn’t maximum coverage for your brand. It’s the most meaningful and efficient coverage.

If you need help with answering some of these questions, it's a good idea to submit your brand name or logo for a This will uncover potential conflicts or issues and categorize your brand in the appropriate classes.

No. Filing too broadly can weaken your trademark and expose it to audits, non-use cancellations, or bad-faith objections. Trademark protection should reflect real or genuinely imminent commercial use, not hypothetical expansion.

You may leave key parts of your business unprotected. Competitors can legally file similar marks in adjacent classes, forcing you into costly enforcement actions or even partial rebrands. Narrow filings often create problems later, when the brand has already gained value.

Focus on how your brand is actually used today, where revenue already comes from, and which expansions are realistically planned. If a dispute arises, the most visible and commercially important use of your brand is usually what matters most.