A likelihood of confusion refusal from the USPTO is not a final answer. It is the beginning of a conversation, one that happens in writing, on a legal record, with deadlines attached. How you respond, and whether you respond at all, has consequences that extend well beyond your trademark registration.
This post walks through the realistic options available to applicants who receive a Section 2(d) refusal, what each option involves, and how to think about the decision. These options are not mutually exclusive, and more than one may be appropriate in your circumstances.
First: Understand What You Are Responding To
Before deciding how to proceed, it is worth taking the time to understand exactly why the refusal was issued. The examining attorney's office action will cite one or more registered marks and explain which DuPont factors were found to weigh in favor of confusion. That reasoning matters, because the probability of your response overcoming the refusal depends on the strength of the examining attorney's reasoning.
Reading the office action carefully, and understanding the legal framework behind it, is the starting point for everything that follows.
Option 1: Respond Arguing the DuPont Factors
The most common response to a Section 2(d) refusal is a substantive legal argument that the confusion finding is wrong. This typically means arguing that one or more of the DuPont factors weigh against confusion, and that the totality of the analysis does not support the refusal.
Arguments about mark similarity might focus on differences in appearance, sound, or meaning that the examining attorney underweighted. Arguments about goods and services might marshal evidence, including third-party websites, industry publications, or USPTO records, showing that the relevant goods are not actually sold through the same channels, to the same consumers, or in the same competitive context.
Another productive line of argument is the weakness of the cited mark. If the registered mark is descriptive, or if the same term is used widely by third parties in the industry, that mark is entitled to a narrower zone of protection. A weak mark cannot exclude a broader range of similar marks the way a strong, distinctive mark can. Demonstrating weakness through evidence of third-party use is often one of the most effective arguments available.
Option 1A: Contact the Examining Attorney
In rare cases, the refusal might clearly be grounded in a misunderstanding of the facts or misapplication of the law. In these circumstances, it may be worthwhile contacting the examining attorney directly to explain the issue. This may negate the need to draft a formal response. Be careful with timing, however, as contacting the examining attorney does not satisfy or change the deadline to respond to the office action.
Option 2: Negotiate a Consent Agreement
If the owner of the cited registration is willing to agree that the marks can coexist without confusion, a consent agreement can resolve the refusal. The USPTO gives significant weight to consent agreements, on the theory that the party most likely to be harmed by consumer confusion, the existing registrant, is in a good position to assess whether real confusion is likely. That said, the USPTO may still continue the refusal on the grounds that it believes confusion is likely and that it would harm consumers.
A consent agreement typically identifies the parties, their respective goods and services, and any conditions under which they agree to coexist. Sometimes it includes geographic limitations, trade channel restrictions, or other commitments designed to reduce the possibility of actual marketplace confusion.
Negotiating a consent agreement requires finding and contacting the registrant (or prior applicant), which is not always straightforward. Registrant contact information is part of the public record in the USPTO database, but the willingness to engage varies. Some registrants decline, some ignore outreach, and some are open to a conversation, particularly if the goods are genuinely different or the markets do not overlap in a meaningful way.
Option 3: Narrow the Identification of Goods or Services
Sometimes a refusal can be resolved, or at least narrowed, by amending the description of goods and services in the application. If your identification is broad and the cited registration covers a subset of what you have claimed, narrowing your identification to exclude the problematic overlap can reduce or eliminate the conflict.
This is not always possible. If the core of your business overlaps directly with the cited registration, there may be no way to narrow around it without giving up something you actually need. But in cases where the original identification was broader than necessary, or where the conflict is only with a portion of the claimed goods, an amendment can be a practical path forward.
Option 4: Request Suspension Pending a Cancellation
If the cited registration is vulnerable to cancellation, for example because the registrant has not maintained bona fide use of the mark, it may be possible to petition the USPTO to suspend the application while a cancellation proceeding is pursued at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. If the registration is successfully cancelled, the basis for the refusal disappears.
This is a more aggressive and resource-intensive path, and it is not appropriate for every situation. But when the cited registration appears to be dormant or abandoned in practice, it can be worth investigating.
Option 5: Appeal to the TTAB
If the examining attorney maintains the refusal after your response, the next step is an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The TTAB is an administrative court within the USPTO that handles trademark disputes, including appeals from final refusals.
A TTAB appeal involves filing a formal brief arguing that the examining attorney's analysis was incorrect. The TTAB may affirm the refusal, reverse it, or remand for further examination. Appeals take time, often a year or more, and require careful legal briefing. But for applicants who believe the refusal was wrongly decided and who have a strong factual record, an appeal is a legitimate option.
Option 6: Consider a Rebrand
Not every likelihood of confusion refusal should be contested. Sometimes the honest assessment is that the cited mark is strong, the goods are genuinely related, the marks are genuinely similar, and the refusal is well-founded. In those cases, investing significant resources in a legal fight is unlikely to change the outcome, and the risk of infringement liability from continuing to use the mark compounds over time.
Catching a conflict early, before the brand is deeply embedded in the market, is actually the best-case scenario for discovering a problem. The cost of changing a brand grows over time.
The Decision Requires Professional Judgment
Choosing among these options is not a mechanical exercise. It requires assessing the strength of the refusal, the value of the mark to your business, your risk tolerance, your timeline, and your budget. It also requires understanding the legal record in enough detail to know which arguments are available to you and which ones are unlikely to succeed.
That is where an attorney adds the most value, not just in drafting the response, but in helping you understand what you are actually dealing with and what the realistic paths forward look like.
Talk to Five Dogs Law
If you received a likelihood of confusion office action and want to understand your options, Five Dogs Law offers complimentary consultations. We can review the specific refusal, walk through the realistic arguments available, and help you make an informed decision about how to proceed. There is no obligation, and the conversation costs you nothing.
.svg)