Anatomy of a solicitation scheme: victim speaks out on dubious tactics of low-cost filing platform

• Investigation reveals tactics of suspicious trademark filing entity
• Victim received fake USPTO documents claiming unnecessary fees
• Google pledges to remove ads that violate misrepresentation policy

In an exclusive investigation, WTR can reveal how a trademark filing entity seemingly targeted a small business owner via an allegedly misleading Google ad and subsequently impersonated the USPTO in a bid to solicit payments. In a wide-ranging interview, the victim speaks of his “embarrassment and frustration” and claims that alleged trademark filing scams are “preying on people trying to pursue the American dream”.

For the past two years, WTR has reported extensively on schemes marketing low-cost trademark services and targeting US business owners. Some of these platforms have been linked to suspicious activity on thousands of US trademark applications and big money has been spent on Google Ads to promote the sites. Some of these entities have been found to file poor-quality trademark applications, aggressively up-sell unnecessary services, threaten clients and even forge official US government documents (including trademark certificates).

Despite claiming to be based in the United States, many of these newly launched platforms appear to be operated by IT companies located in Karachi, Pakistan. To date, two Karachi-based IT firms have been investigated for operating allegedly fraudulent trademark filing websites. Abtach was banned from practising before the USPTO in January 2022, while Digitonics Labs was raided and investigated for money laundering and fraud by the Pakistan Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in mid-2021.

However, new platforms are launching regularly, and a source based in Pakistan has told WTR that a number of IT firms have formed in the past 12 to 18 months to operate trademark scams targeting the European and US markets.

One platform that has come under scrutiny is Deputy Trademark, which was registered as a domain in April 2022. In November we revealed that the platform was spending an estimated $3,860 a month on Google advertising on trademark-related search keywords. The Google ads claimed that users could “register a trademark” for $45 (plus filing fees) in “just a few clicks” and with “100% success rate” (see example below).

Google ad for Deputy Trademark from 2022

According to the website (screenshot), the $45 ‘basic package’ includes case review, case preparation, case filing, search and a “100% satisfaction guarantee”. One person who was enticed by the low-cost offering was a US-based small business owner. Preferring to remain anonymous due to fears for their safety, the individual spoke to WTR about the three-fold campaign that unfolded over a number of months.

• First, the platform filed the requested trademark in only one class, despite multiple goods and services classes being paid for.
• The individual then received a proof-of-use opposition claim that appeared to be filed by a paralegal from another trademark filing platform (potentially owned by the same entity).
• Finally, a forged document purporting to be from the USPTO was sent, requesting an additional fee to have the trademark registered.

“They were not pushy”

It is often believed that victims fall for trademark filing campaigns due to a lack of IP knowledge. This is not always the case. The entrepreneur that we spoke to outlined his experience with the USPTO in the past, which included filing several patents. “I already had a patent attorney who does trademarks,” he explains. “But his hourly rates are very high” for what he perceives as relatively simple work. “I could have even done it myself, but I found it easier to just find a company who registers trademarks,” he continues. “As the process is fairly straightforward, just time consuming, the prices people were charging didn't seem that low if they are a company who just pumps out tons of trademark applications.”

For that reason, he “jumped onto Google” to identify a more affordable option. At the top of the search results was an advert for Deputy Trademark’s low-cost service offering. “I realised that $45 was low, but I saw the website offered other packages that were more expensive,” he says. “It also claimed to offer 24/7 support and the website looked professional. I jumped on their online chat to ask questions and even called them to learn more about the process. They were straightforward, polite, answered all of my questions, and were not pushy at all. I told them I would shop around and they said to call back if I wanted to move forward.”

The entrepreneur took proactive measures before progressing. “Before I use a company for the first time, I usually always do a search for ‘company name scam’ and ‘company name reviews’,” he explains. “I don't remember what the results were for Deputy Trademark, but I definitely did not see any negative reviews, articles or message board posts with people reporting a bad experience with the company. I didn't think of checking when their domain was registered as they looked very similar in format to all of the other trademark companies I had been looking at. Their fee structure was also similar but a little bit cheaper, but not anything that raised any red flags. Therefore, after having a good experience on the phone and on their website, I called them the next day and started the process.”

Crucially, the entrepreneur did not feel misled by the $45 price tag on the Google advert. He understood that the price was “just for the case review” and that the USPTO fee for a trademark filing was $350 – although he admits that he did not realise at the time that multiple goods/services classifications would mean a significantly higher fee. “When [the Deputy Trademark representative] told me it would be $1,050, I gave her some push-back,” he says. “She explained what the classifications were, and [advised that] to protect a trademark as an e-commerce business, it is recommended to file under three specific goods and services. She explained everything in detail, and I did a little research and it was true. The fees also matched up with the trademark costs listed by the USPTO. For that reason, I told her to proceed.”

An application was subsequently lodged, and a ‘congratulations’ email was sent by the filing platform. To confirm this, the entrepreneur went on the USPTO website to check that the filing was submitted, but he did not fully investigate the application as he did not suspect any wrongdoing.

Shortly after the filing went live, the entrepreneur received an email from a paralegal at another filing platform, Trademark Licit (a website first identified by WTR in August 2022). The email (which can be viewed here) claimed that there was a conflict with the trademark and that the applicant must "raise an objection" or risk losing the rights to the mark. “I didn't become suspicious until I got this challenge letter,” the entrepreneur says. “However, at the time I thought it was Trademark Licit who was trying to scam me. I went back to the Deputy Trademark representative and asked whether it was genuine, and she said yes, someone is challenging the trademark claiming that it is in use.”

In response, the Deputy Trademark representative claimed that she needed to submit a statement of use, charged at $100 per class, plus a $99 attorney processing fee. “The fees on the USPTO website matched up and it was just $99 to have them file it for me, so it didn't seem like they were gauging me for more money,” our source says. “However, when I compare the websites of Deputy Trademark and Trademark Licit now, I see that the fees, phone numbers, and addresses are different, but the website structure is the same and the same pictures are used. I therefore believe it is just another one of their companies and they use the two to scam each other's clients.”

Further analysis by WTR confirms that Deputy Trademark and Trademark Licit are hosted on the same server.

Deputy Trademark and Trademark Licit website homepages

Despite being initially “apprehensive” about the Trademark Licit email, the entrepreneur was unaware of any real issue. “I remember thinking something didn't make 100% sense, but the process seemed normal: I told them what happened, [and] the Deputy Trademark representative checked with her legal team. She said they checked with the USPTO and they drafted a statement of use document with everything I put together,” he recalls. “When I first sent the documents demonstrating use, they told me it was not enough and I needed more. Looking back, they must have known they were not going to submit this document, so it was crazy that they went to those lengths.”

WTR has checked the USPTO database and no document was seemingly submitted.

“I knew something wasn't right”

After the statement was said to be filed, things went relatively quiet. The entrepreneur received “periodic emails checking in” with him and even a Christmas card from the filing firm. However, then came a new request for fees. “It wasn't until I was told there was a ‘final’ step needed to get the trademark registered, with a much higher fee, that I knew something wasn't right,” he says.

The request was explained to the entrepreneur by email and over the phone. It claimed that the trademark application needed “to be attested and endorsed by the US State Department” through the submission of an “affidavit of guarantee”. This, the email claimed, “would be [the] final process and financial obligation” before the trademark was finalised. The requested fee was more than $1,600.

Attached to the email was a document that the Deputy Trademark representative claimed was a “notice from the USPTO” outlining the requirement (which can be viewed here). In it, the ‘affidavit proof of guarantee’ is described as a verification that will be “shipped to CA”. “The patent application will be going to attest by IRS & DOJ in all 50 states of United States,” it adds. The business owner also received a phone call claiming to be from the USPTO reiterating the requirements listed in the document.

“When I saw the USPTO letter, it was a dead giveaway, it looked fake” the entrepreneur says. “It was at this point that I got in contact with the USPTO through their real number, not the fake number that had clearly been set up. That’s when I found out they had filed the trademark under one classification and that nothing since the initial filing was required as the application had not been assigned to an examining attorney.”

Talking to WTR, The Ideas Law Firm managing partner Ryan Bethell – a regular commentator on fraud at the USPTO – confirms that the letter is fake. “There is no ‘three-month grace period’ on a Section 8 and 9 filing, which would occur 10 years after the trademark is registered, at any rate,” he explains. “USPTO reminders also include the filing deadlines, which are omitted in this instance. It's clear a real reminder was used as the template. However, I have never heard the term ‘affidavit of guarantee’, and they seem to be intermixing the terms ‘trademark’ and ‘patent’ quite freely in the email, which is a dead giveaway to a trained eye.”

“I am embarrassed and frustrated”

With the entrepreneur reluctant to pay the newly requested fee, there was now a marked shift in attitude from the representatives at Deputy Trademark. In previous communications, the entrepreneur’s main point of contact was a “woman with a slight accent, very Americanized” who “wasn’t pushy” and “sounded very reasonable”. After voicing concern at the latest fee request, the phone calls were now with a “gentleman with a very heavy Indian accent” who had “a completely different personality”, “talked very fast”, “repeated the same information from a script over and over again” and “said everything was very time sensitive”, he recalls.

At this stage, the entrepreneur came to the belief that he had been duped. “I launched a company based on what I thought was a fully trademarked name, but now I see that only one of the classifications was filed and now I need to go back and do it all over again,” he says. “Emotionally, I am embarrassed and frustrated. As a small business owner, you are being stretched in a million different directions. When you think you have completed something and can move on, having to go back and do it again is a huge drain on time and resources.”

WTR has contacted Deputy Trademark for its response to these allegations, and has yet to receive a response.

The entrepreneur has been told that he should be able to get the money back after reporting the situation to his bank. However, the fact that a trademark application was filed by Deputy Trademark means that the financial institution did not define the case as ‘fraud’, but rather filed it under “services not as advertised”, which has a lower chance of a successful charge-back. This is despite evidence pointing to forged government documents and communications requesting unnecessary legal fees.

For this reason, the business owner believes that the USPTO needs to do more to raise awareness of such filing entities and make it harder for them to file trademarks. “There is a lot more the USPTO could be doing,” he says. “They have a few articles on their website about trademark scams, but for this one to have worked, the company had to have interacted with the USPTO website. Therefore, I believe a person or company that is filing trademarks for someone else should be vetted and verified properly – especially because the agency knows this sort of scam is going on.”

For its part, in August 2022, the USPTO introduced mandatory ID verification for all US-licensed attorneys and any trademark owner not represented by an attorney. According to the business owner, though, there are still gaps in the system. “All they had on file for the person that did my application was a random phone number and a Gmail email account for a point of contact,” he says. “So while they may have a vetting process in place, obviously something is not working.”

This would also not have happened without the prevalence of adverts on Google search pages for trademark-related keywords. As WTR has reported extensively, these ads could be the driving force behind the success of certain scam campaigns. While Google has taken action in the past, including banning Abtach’s Google Ads account after it was penalised by the USPTO for its activity, the issue is ongoing and new suspicious filing platforms are being regularly identified as spending thousands of dollars on Google advertising.

Commenting on this, the entrepreneur alleges: “Google is probably making hundreds of thousands of dollars a month from these scammers. They should not be profiting on companies that are preying on business owners. The whole point of Google is to provide the best, most relevant information – and with the paid adverts for these filing services, they are failing tremendously.”

After an enquiry, WTR understands that Google is reviewing the ads that are currently operating on trademark-related keywords. In a statement to WTR, a Google spokesperson says: “We have strict ads policies that govern the types of ads and advertisers we allow on our platforms. If we identify an advertisement that violates our misrepresentation policy, we immediately remove them.”

For now, suspicious low-cost trademark filing platforms continue to spend heavily on Google ads, and representatives at those companies continue to file trademarks at the USPTO. Until a serious crackdown occurs, there is little sign that this activity will stop – and small business owners will continue to be at risk when searching for trademark services in the United States.

“They are preying on people trying to pursue the American dream of starting their own company,” the entrepreneur concludes. “That’s what makes me most upset. Being a small business owner, and having started from scratch, I know how hard it can be to start up a company, both emotionally and financially. In the beginning, most companies make very little money or even lose money. To have your resources go to someone who is scamming you is beyond humiliating. There are a million other reasons why a company can fail, people should not have to worry about businesses advertising on Google spending tons of money being out to get them as well.”

Previous WTR coverage on issues related to low-cost trademark agencies:

• Trademark Terminal: concern grows over mysterious low-cost trademark filing entities (1 February 2021)
• USPTO users targeted in massive fraud and money laundering case in Pakistan (23 February 2021)
• Concern grows over low-cost trademark agencies in wake of USPTO fraud case (23 February 2021)
• USPTO urged to set up task force to address scams following massive Pakistan fraud case (1 March 2021)
• ‘The public is not being protected’ – Trademark Terminal shifts USPTO strategy as concern over practice continues (11 March 2021)
• Bribery, impersonation, abuse: shocking details revealed in Pakistan fraud case that targeted USPTO users (30 April 2021)
• “Money flushed down the toilet” – customers decry low-cost agency Trademark Plus (17 May 2021)
• Revealed: how controversial low-cost online trademark platforms dominate paid Google search results (27 May 2021)
• Concern voiced as low-cost filer Trademark Terminal launches new platforms (10 June 2021)
• Scammed out of $150,000: allegations of fraud, threats and USPTO impersonation (23 July 2021)
• USPTO urged to protect its own brand in fight against fraud and scams (4 August 2021)
• USPTO seeks federal trademark registration to help tackle “growing problem” of filing scams (5 August 2021)
• USPTO pledges fraud fightback after scathing report into US trademark registration process (18 August 2021)
• Trademark Terminal pauses filing operation, as evidence suggests USPTO cracks down (26 August 2021)
• New low-cost filing platforms with striking similarities to controversial Trademark Terminal target US applicants (13 October 2021)
• “Disgusting fraud” – USPTO targets Trademark Terminal operator Abtach with scathing show-cause order (4 November 2021)
• The dangerous legacy of Axact: how a ‘diploma mill’ in Pakistan led to a trademark scam epidemic (25 November 2021)
• USPTO issues advice to fraud victims with suspended trademark applications (14 December 2021)
• Google blocks ads from Trademark Terminal operator Abtach following USPTO action (6 January 2022)
• ‘Widespread, intentional, coordinated fraud’ – Trademark Terminal operator Abtach banned from USPTO practice (26 January 2022)
• More suspicious low-cost trademark filing platforms discovered after USPTO fraud crackdown (8 February 2022)
• More low-cost trademark platforms emerge as advertisers on Google, with concerning transcript published (5 April 2022)
• New suspicious trademark filing websites identified as USPTO ID verification delayed (2 June 2022)
• “Cautiously optimistic”: USPTO to introduce mandatory ID verification from August in fraud crackdown (7 July 2022)
• Nine more suspicious trademark filing platforms identified as USPTO ID verification looms (21 July 2022)
• Leaked email reveals new solicitation tactics used by suspicious online filing agency (9 August 2022)
• “Completely bogus” USPTO document revealed as concern grows over low-cost filing agencies (4 November 2022)
• Anatomy of a solicitation scheme: victim speaks out on dubious tactics of low-cost filing platform (24 February 2022)