Response to an office action
Save your trademark application by submitting a proper response to an office action issued by the intellectual property office.
Has your trademark been rejected?
When applying for a trademark, the examiner might issue an office action and dismiss your application on various grounds, ranging from mere formalities to more complex issues. We can help you prepare and submit a properly formulated response and improve your chances of saving your trademark.
office actions successfully overcome
jurisdictions covered, including US, EU & UK
What can be done about an office action?
The approach to resolving non-final office actions will depend on the nature of the issue. Below you can find some of the standard resolution tactics we also employ.
These minor issues are usually quickly resolved. They might require correcting the intended owner's details or submitting an additional form to the examiner.
Lack of distinctiveness
If the IPO considers the mark not distinct enough, the solution might involve collecting evidence proving that the mark has "acquired distinctiveness through use".
How it works?
Share the details of your case
Fill out the form below and describe the issue mentioned in the office action.
We will assess your case and provide you with a quote.
Preparation and submission
If you choose us as your representatives, we will prepare a proper response to the office action and submit it to the authorities on your behalf.
Pricing for a standard case
Should the scope of your case exceed our standard rate, we will provide a fixed quote so you know what to expect before choosing our services.
What our clients say?
I did a lot of research online. Trama stood out in two ways. First, it was the clarity of explanation. All my questions were quickly answered, giving me the confidence. Secondly, it is a well-packaged product and I really liked it.
Learn more about intellectual property from these cases
Tesco Stores Limited v. LCN Apparel, Inc.
Subject matter: Dominant element, Figurative element, Identity of goods and services, Likelihood of confusion, Phonetic similarity, Visual similarity
Red Bull GmbH v. PGL GmbH & Co. KG
Subject matter: Likelihood of confusion, Dissimilarity of signs, Enhanced distinctiveness, Reputation, Unfair advantage, Belated evidence
Frequently asked questions
Let's save your trademark together
Leave us a note so we can assess your case.