Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Analyze

Turn search results into a clearance memo with a real score

Takes the hits you pulled and produces a GREEN/YELLOW/RED clearance memo: distinctiveness, DuPont on the marks that matter, common-law users, and a caveat paragraph honestly sized to the search you actually ran.

About 25 minintermediateIP, Transactional

Your prompt5,984 characters

Still to fill in: Proposed mark, Goods and services, Search results

RoleYou are a trademark lawyer who has cleared hundreds of marks and has had to make the call three weeks before a launch. You separate what an examining attorney will refuse from what a senior user will actually sue over, and you write the caveat paragraph first, because a memo that lets a client believe a knockout was a full search is the one that ends in a malpractice claim.What I needClear Proposed mark for Goods and services in United States only, using only the hits in my search results. The search performed was: Knockout: USPTO plus a quick web and social sweep. Give me a score, the reasoning, and a recommendation I can act on.InputsProposed mark: Proposed mark Goods and services: Goods and services Search results: Search results Search depth performed: Knockout: USPTO plus a quick web and social sweep Territory: United States onlyHow to work this1. Open with the search scope: databases, date, classes, and which variants were covered: phonetic, translation, plural, design. Name what was not searched. Where United States only reaches past the United States, name each non-US register you did not search and say plainly that this memo clears no rights there. Never infer coverage I did not describe. 2. Place the mark on the distinctiveness spectrum and name the specific word or element that will draw a disclaimer requirement. For the United States, screen the § 2 bars separately: surname, geographic, deceptive, false suggestion of a connection. For any non-US territory in United States only, name that office's equivalent grounds, or say you do not know its practice. 3. Judge each hit against the actual identification of goods and services in the cited record, not the class number. Say so explicitly when a shared class is doing no work. 4. For each material hit, run only the DuPont factors that have a record behind them, and name the factors you skipped for want of evidence. DuPont is the US test and nothing else: never run it over a foreign register. Where United States only extends past the United States, name the comparison test that office applies, or mark it [UNVERIFIED - confirm its practice] and say a first-to-file register can hand priority to a squatter. 5. Map every senior unregistered user geographically and state the territory they could hold against my client. Common-law priority arises from use, so this analysis reaches only the use-based territories in United States only; say so. 6. Score GREEN, YELLOW, or RED in one sentence, then recommend: file or do not, on what basis, in which classes, with which modification if any, and whether a consent or coexistence agreement resolves the closest hit. 7. Close with a caveat paragraph sized to Knockout: USPTO plus a quick web and social sweep and to United States only: what this search does not reach, which territories in United States only it does not clear at all, and what the next tier would add.Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait. I have already given you the mark, the identification, the hits I pulled, the depth tier, and the territory. These are the things the search results cannot tell you: 1. How far has the client already gone: domain bought, packaging printed, signage ordered, name in a funding deck? Clearing a whiteboard name is a different memo from clearing a name going on forty storefronts in six weeks. 2. Will the client modify the mark if I ask, or is this a yes-or-no on the name as it stands? A YELLOW is only useful if a fallback exists. 3. Is this a house brand that will stretch across future lines, or one product? I clear the identification you give me, not the one you file in three years. 4. Which databases did you actually search, on what date, and what did you deliberately skip? The depth tier tells me the category; the memo needs the names and the date verbatim. Do not begin the analysis until I answer. If I tell you to proceed anyway, state each assumption at the top of your output and mark it [ASSUMPTION - verify].Output formatA three-sentence bottom line carrying the score, the biggest issue, and the next step. Then search scope; distinctiveness and § 2 analysis; a conflict table with owner, number, goods, DuPont read and risk; a DuPont narrative on the closest hit only; common-law users with territory; domain and handle availability marked practical rather than legal; the recommendation; the caveat paragraph. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the score and what you would have scored without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- If this memo would read the same for any mark in any class, it is too generic. Tie every conclusion to the identification I gave you and the specific hits I pasted. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," "it depends," and "some risk exists." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the one signing this opinion. - Every registration number, serial number, filing date, owner name, and status must come from the search results I pasted or carry [UNVERIFIED - pull the TSDR record]. Never invent a registration number and never assume a cited mark is live. - Where the record does not show whether a cited mark is in use, or whether a common-law user is senior, say you do not know. Do not convert a gap into a GREEN. - Do not pad. A clean knockout is a page. Length is not value.Before you answer- Did I test phonetic equivalents, translations, and plural or possessive variants, or only exact strings? - Did I judge relatedness on the actual identifications rather than the class numbers? - Is every registration number traceable to what I pasted, or marked unverified? - Would a client reading only this memo know what was not searched, and would this memo fit any other mark? It should not.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

Who attacks this first: the examining attorney, or the owner of the closest cited mark? Read it once as each. First as the examining attorney assigned to the application: what refusal issues on the first Office Action, and does the memo's distinctiveness call survive it? Then as counsel to the owner of the closest cited mark, who just saw the application publish: give me the two arguments they raise in an opposition, rescore my opposition risk with those arguments in hand, and propose two specific modifications to the mark that cut the risk without losing the brand.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Clearance ends the day the brand goes live; that is when the objections start. Build the post-launch defense file: a two-paragraph response the client sends if a senior user objects after launch, an outline of the coexistence agreement you would propose to the closest cited owner including the territory and goods carve-outs, and the watch-service parameters: which formatives, which classes, and who reviews the notices.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The proposed mark exactly as it will be used, including stylization
  • The identification of goods and services the client will actually file
  • Which databases you searched, on what date, and which variants you covered
  • How far the client has already committed to the name and when they launch
  • Whether the client will file intent-to-use or already has use in commerce

Watch for

  • A knockout is not adequate diligence for material brand investment. Say so in the memo and recommend a comprehensive search before any go-to-market spend.
  • USPTO class is a filing convention, not a legal test for relatedness. Two marks in Class 9 may never compete and two marks in different classes may collide.
  • Senior unregistered users hold enforceable rights in their territory that no federal database will show. Even a knockout needs some common-law screening.
  • The doctrine of foreign equivalents can create confusion an English-language search never surfaces. Translate the mark in any language spoken by an appreciable segment of the buying public.
  • The model cannot search. It only reasons over the hits you paste, so anything you did not pull does not exist in this memo. State that limit in the client file.

What comes back

A three-sentence bottom line with the GREEN/YELLOW/RED score, the biggest issue, and the next step; a search-scope paragraph stating databases, date, classes and variants covered and skipped; distinctiveness and § 2 analysis with any disclaimer requirement named; a conflict table with owner, number, goods, DuPont read and risk; a DuPont narrative on the closest hit; common-law users with territory; domain and handle availability flagged as practical not legal; a filing recommendation naming basis, classes and any modification; and a caveat paragraph sized to the depth performed and the territory cleared. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the score and what you would have scored without them. If an answer changed nothing, say so. It means I should not have been asked.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(After you answer the four questions: domain acquired but no signage ordered, client will modify if pushed, single-property brand, knockout plus light state screening run April 25, 2026.)* Bottom line. YELLOW. The closest hit, OLIVE TREE LIVING for residential rentals, sits in the same class and the same industry with a shared dominant element, which creates real opposition exposure but not a refusal I would expect to lose. File intent-to-use in Classes 35 and 36 with the PLAZA disclaimer, and run a comprehensive common-law sweep before any signage spend. Search scope. USPTO TESS, live and dead, exact plus phonetic plus plural variants, IC 035, 036 and 043, run April 25, 2026. Google, Instagram and LinkedIn sweep. Secretary of State searches in TX, CA and FL. Whois on olivetreeplaza.com and four variants. Not searched: design-mark register (no logo supplied), foreign equivalents (US-only territory), full common-law database, deep state registries beyond the three named. Distinctiveness and § 2. OLIVE TREE PLAZA for retail leasing is suggestive as a composite: the tree imagery evokes an atmosphere without describing the service. PLAZA is descriptive of an open-air retail center and will draw a disclaimer requirement; expect it in the first Office Action and give it up without a fight. No surname, geographic, or deceptiveness bar apparent. Conflicts. | # | Senior mark | Owner | Number | Goods | DuPont read | Risk | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | OLIVE TREE LIVING | RidgePine Holdings | Reg. 6,123,456 (live) | Residential apartment rentals, IC 036 | High similarity in sight, sound and meaning; moderate relatedness: shared class, different sub-segment; overlapping marketing channels; sophisticated commercial tenants | Moderate | | 2 | OLIVETREE & design | Coastal Bistro LLC | App. 98/123,456 (pending) | Restaurant services, IC 043 | High word similarity; low relatedness; different channels and buyers | Low | Closest hit. The shared OLIVE TREE element dominates both marks, and both sit in Class 36. What saves this is the sub-segment split: a commercial tenant signing a ten-year retail lease is not the buyer who rents an apartment, and the buying process is months long with counsel involved. Strength of the senior mark appears limited to a single registration with no family surfaced. Coexistence with a residential-versus-commercial carve-out is a realistic landing spot. Factors skipped for want of a record: actual confusion, concurrent use, and intent. Common-law users. Two Texas event venues operating as "Olive Tree Plaza" on LinkedIn, small and local, no state or federal filings found. If either predates the client's first use they hold rights in their trade territory. That is a Texas problem only, and only if the client expands there. Domains and handles: practical, not legal. olivetreeplaza.com is parked and acquirable. Instagram @olivetreeplaza is available. The .co and .center variants are open. Recommendation. File intent-to-use in IC 036 and IC 035, accept the PLAZA disclaimer, and open a short coexistence inquiry with RidgePine before publication rather than after. Acquire the domain and lock the handles now. If the client wants the risk lower without a full rename, adding a distinctive house element ahead of OLIVE TREE is the cheapest fix. Caveats. This is a knockout plus light state screening run April 25, 2026 on US rights only. It does not cover the design register, foreign equivalents, full common-law databases, or state filings outside TX, CA and FL. The opposition read assumes RidgePine has no family of OLIVE TREE marks beyond the single registration surfaced here, which a comprehensive search would confirm or refute. What your answers changed. That the client will modify the mark is what holds this at YELLOW instead of RED. If OLIVE TREE PLAZA were already on signage with no fallback and no coexistence lever, the RidgePine hit would have scored RED and the recommendation would have been to stop and rename. That this is a single-property brand rather than a house mark is why I cleared only IC 035 and 036 and left the restaurant application at Low; a house mark stretching into food service makes hit #2 material and the score changes again. Your answer about the domain purchase changed nothing in the legal analysis. It moved the acquisition up the task list and nothing else.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Match the memo to the search.** A knockout is USPTO plus a quick web and social sweep. A comprehensive adds state registries, full common-law databases, design and translation analysis. Never let the memo imply coverage that was not performed. 2. **Distinctiveness before conflicts.** Generic is unregistrable, descriptive needs secondary meaning, suggestive and above is inherently distinctive. Identify the element that will draw a disclaimer. 3. **Screen the § 2 bars separately.** Surname, geographic descriptiveness or misdescriptiveness, deceptiveness, false suggestion of a connection. 4. **DuPont structures the conflict analysis in the United States**: appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression; relatedness of goods; channels; buyer sophistication; strength of the senior mark; actual confusion. Run only the factors with a record, and never over a foreign register. 5. **Class is not relatedness.** Compare the actual identification of goods and services in the cited registration. 6. **Do not stop at exact matches.** Phonetic equivalents, foreign-language translations, plurals and possessives, design elements, house marks. 7. **Senior unregistered users hold real rights** in their territory. Map them geographically. 8. **Score GREEN, YELLOW, or RED** and pair the score with a filing recommendation, not a shrug. 9. **Coexistence is often the answer** to a YELLOW. Say so before recommending a name change.