Trademark Enforcement
& Cease-and-Desist

A cease-and-desist letter is a documented demand to stop allegedly infringing activity, not a court order. It puts the recipient on notice, sets a clear basis for future legal action, and frequently resolves disputes without litigation. The USPTO confirms that responses to a C&D may include denial, negotiation, declaratory judgment action, or strategic non-response. The letter's value lies in what it documents and what it preserves: a clean record of when the rights holder asserted the mark, and the strategic options that record opens later.

Escalation options after an unanswered cease-and-desist letter include a USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding (where the other party has an application or registration; the Board decides only rights of registration), a federal court complaint, or a platform brand-registry escalation. Federal litigation under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125 carries the prospect of injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, and in exceptional cases attorney's fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117. The right next step depends on the strength of the claim, the recipient's apparent capacity to defend, and the business stakes. We assess the leverage before recommending escalation.

A Letter of Protest is an evidence package filed with the USPTO and reviewed by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy. If it complies with the rule, the evidence is entered in the application record for the Examining Attorney to consider on the identified grounds for refusal, such as a prior registration or prior-pending application, or descriptiveness. The USPTO accepts Letters of Protest before publication, or within 30 days after publication under a stricter standard. The filing fee is $150. Letters of Protest are not contested proceedings; they are evidence-only submissions, and the protester's involvement ends with the filing.

An Extension of Time to Oppose preserves your right to oppose a published trademark application without committing to fight. The opposition period under Section 13 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1063 is 30 days from publication in the Official Gazette. A first extension request may be for 30 days, granted on request, or for 90 days, granted only for good cause. After an initial 30-day extension, one further 60-day extension may be granted for good cause. After extensions totaling 90 days, one final 60-day extension requires the applicant's written consent or stipulation, or a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Each request must be filed before the current deadline expires, and the opposition period cannot be extended beyond 180 days from publication. The USPTO received 21,356 extension requests in fiscal year 2026, and 8,631 oppositions were filed that year.

A trademark coexistence agreement is a contract between two trademark owners with similar or related marks, defining each party's rights, restrictions, and obligations to operate alongside each other in the marketplace. It can specify geographic restrictions, channels-of-trade limits, goods or services scope, and mutual consent to register. Properly drafted, a coexistence agreement resolves a brand conflict at a fraction of the cost of an inter partes proceeding. A senior user must draft carefully: an inappropriate coexistence with one competitor can weaken the senior user's position against future similarly-situated competitors.

Amazon Brand Registry is a platform-specific enforcement system that gives brand owners with a registered trademark or a pending application from a qualifying trademark office reporting tools to remove listings infringing their brand. A DMCA takedown is a copyright-specific remedy under 17 U.S.C. § 512, used when copyrighted content is reproduced without permission. Brand Registry handles trademark and counterfeit issues. The two can run on parallel tracks. Choosing the right one depends on what is being copied, where, and what evidence the platform requires.

It can. A poorly constructed C&D letter that creates a credible, specific threat of imminent litigation can give the recipient grounds to file a declaratory judgment action first, in a venue of their choosing, asking a court to declare non-infringement. The letter can also generate public-relations risk if the recipient publishes it. We draft the letter to assert rights without ceding control over forum or narrative, and we advise against sending one when the underlying claim is too weak to defend.

No. Common-law trademark rights arise from actual use of a mark in commerce and are enforceable under Lanham Act § 43, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, even without registration. Federal registration strengthens your position significantly: it provides nationwide constructive notice, presumption of validity, and platform-enforcement eligibility. If you are enforcing without a registration, we recommend assembling documented evidence of your use, including when it began and where. We assess the registration status before recommending the enforcement strategy.

Yes. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1127, a mark is deemed abandoned when any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes it to become the generic name for the goods or services or otherwise to lose its significance as a mark, and a registration can be cancelled at any time if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services (15 U.S.C. § 1064(3)). We recommend active monitoring and enforcement.

Sometimes. US trademark rights extend to use in US commerce, including imports through US ports; a current trademark registration, other than a Supplemental Register registration, may be recorded with US Customs and Border Protection under 19 C.F.R. § 133.1(a). As of November 3, 2026, Amazon states that a brand can hold a single global Brand Registry account, enrolls using one country-based trademark office, and can add trademarks from other countries' offices after enrollment is approved. The strategy depends on where the seller operates, where you have rights, and what remedy you need.