Trademark Fraud Toolkit: Use Audits, Deletion Records, and Pleading Frameworks

How to use this toolkit

A fraud claim is usually decided by paper that existed before anyone thought about fraud: a sales export, an email to the signer, a note about why a good came off the list. These templates are meant to create that paper in the ordinary course, and to give each side a disciplined way to frame the dispute if one comes.

Each template gives its purpose, owner, and timing, then the working text, then drafting notes with authority. Text in [BRACKETS] must be replaced. The filled-in samples use an invented company, Brindlewood Provisions LLC, a Vermont maker of jams and preserves. A pleading template is a frame only. Under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, every allegation you keep must be one you can support.

The doctrine is explained in Fraud on the USPTO: How a False Declaration Can Cost You a Trademark Registration. Sequencing and judgment calls are in Auditing a Trademark Filing for Fraud Risk and Defending a Fraud Claim: A Practical Guide. The desk list is the Trademark Declaration Accuracy Checklist.

Template 1: Filing and declaration inventory

Purpose: a single chronology of every sworn or certified statement in the file. Owner: trademark paralegal. Timing: first day of any audit, or when a dispute appears.

Drafting notes. Include unverified statements. In Fair Isaac Corp. v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 650 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2011), the fraud verdict rested on factual statements made while answering a refusal. Note who entered each signature, because 37 C.F.R. § 2.193(a) requires personal entry. A challenger uses the same table as the skeleton of a Rule 9(b) pleading: each row supplies a who, a when, and a what. Chain-of-title problems feed the Trademark Ownership Audit Checklist.

Template 2: Good-by-good use audit worksheet

Purpose: test every listed item against records, not recollection. Owner: paralegal drives; product or sales lead supplies data; lawyer decides close calls. Timing: before any statement of use, Section 8, or Section 71, and at least annually for a key mark.

Header. Mark: [ ]. Reg./Ser. No.: [ ]. Filing being prepared: [ ]. Relevant date: [filing date (§ 1(a)); deadline for SOU; current date (§ 8, § 71)]. Prepared by: [ ]. Date: [ ].

Prompts for each line. Mark each one yes, no, or not applicable.

• Is this a regular sale, in the ordinary course, or a one-off made to support a filing?
• Was anything shipped, or was the item only advertised, pre-ordered, or described on a website?
• For services, did a customer actually receive the service?
• Are the words in the identification the words the business would use for this product? If not, is it really the same product?
• For software: downloadable or hosted? Released to customers outside the company? Does the listed function exist in the released version?
• Does the mark appear in the form registered? If the logo changed, is the change material?

Drafting notes. The statutory test is "bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade" (15 U.S.C. § 1127). Advertising without rendering is not service mark use (Couture v. Playdom, Inc., 778 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Licensee use needs control under 15 U.S.C. § 1055. Changes to the mark matter: the registrant in Torres v. Cantine Torresella S.r.l., 808 F.2d 46 (Fed. Cir. 1986), renewed on a label he no longer used. Line 2 is the In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009) fact pattern: true sales in the past, and the registration "needs to be restricted to reflect commercial reality" whatever the state of mind. Line 4 needs a judgment call, since selling your own goods may not be a retail service rendered for others. That is why the worksheet routes it to counsel. Keep the completed worksheet as a business record, and keep counsel's analysis of line 4 separately.

Template 3: Class-by-class proof table

Purpose: one-page view by class, used to answer an audit and to brief the signer. Owner: paralegal. Timing: with Template 2; refresh before each maintenance filing.

Evidence ranking. Use the strongest available for each row.

1. Third-party or transaction records: invoices, bills of lading, marketplace settlement reports, app-store records, payment processor exports.
2. Dated photographs of goods with the mark in a sales setting; dated web captures showing the mark at the point of sale, with URL and date.
3. System records for software: release tags, deployment logs, license or subscription records, customer contracts.
4. Declarations from persons with knowledge. Use these to explain records, not replace them.

Drafting notes. The right-hand column exists because G&W Laboratories, Inc. v. G W Pharma Ltd., 89 USPQ2d 1571 (T.T.A.B. 2009), treats each class as a separate unit, and Meckatzer Löwenbräu Benedikt Weiß KG v. White Gold, LLC, 95 USPQ2d 1185 (T.T.A.B. 2010), confirms that fraud voids the registration as to the affected class. That makes one overclaimed good dangerous for the honest goods beside it, and it may justify filing a marquee product in a separate application. In a random USPTO audit, the Office asks for proof on additional goods per audited class; you must delete anything you cannot prove, at $250 per class each time. See 37 C.F.R. § 2.161(b)-(c) and the Register Clearing Toolkit.

Template 4: Specimen provenance record

Purpose: show where each specimen came from, so no one has to guess six years later. Owner: whoever captures the specimen. Timing: at capture.

Drafting notes. 37 C.F.R. § 2.56(c) bars a "computer illustration, digital image, or similar mockup" and requires a URL and date for web pages. In Look Cycle International v. Kunshan Qiyue Outdoor Sports Goods Co., Canc. No. 92079409 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2024), fraud rested on addresses that did not exist, which is why the record asks about details beyond the mark. The USPTO's audit program looks for specimens that appear digitally altered or come from "specimen farm" websites. Capture technique is in the Trademark Function Toolkit and the Trademark Specimen Preparation Checklist.

Template 5: Section 15 proceedings check

Purpose: verify the two statements most often taken for granted. Owner: trademark counsel, with written input from litigation counsel. Timing: within a few days of signing.

Email to litigation counsel.

We are preparing a Section 15 declaration for [MARK], Reg. No. [ ]. The owner must swear that there is no final decision adverse to its claim of ownership or right to register, and no proceeding involving those rights pending in the USPTO or a court and not finally disposed of. Please tell us by [date] whether you know of any such decision or proceeding, including any appeal, involving [owner], its predecessors, or this mark. If you are unsure, tell us what you have in mind and we will review it.

Drafting notes. The statements come from 15 U.S.C. § 1065 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.167(d)-(e). This sentence was the false one in Great Concepts, LLC v. Chutter, Inc., 90 F.4th 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2023), and in Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 918 F.2d 1439 (9th Cir. 1990), where the filer swore to no adverse decision despite a 1974 ruling. An abandoned application or a settlement is not by itself covered, per Residential Energy Services Network, Inc. v. Building Science Institute, Ltd., No. 22-cv-1641 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2025), but read the agreement. If anything is open, file the Section 8 alone and revisit later. A Section 8 fee alone is $325 per class; Section 15 adds $250 per class.

Template 6: Signatory instructions and confirmation

Purpose: make signing a real act and leave a record of it. Owner: responsible attorney sends; signer returns. Timing: with the final draft, a few days before filing.

To: [Signer] From: [Counsel] Re: Your declaration for [MARK], [filing type]

You are being asked to sign a sworn declaration to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO generally relies on these statements without independent checking. The form warns that willful false statements are punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and may jeopardize the validity of the filing and any resulting registration.

Please do the following before signing:

1. Read the attached declaration in full, including the list of goods and services. It is the exact text you will sign.
2. Review the attached proof table. Each listed item should match a real sale or service we can document.
3. Look at the specimen. It should be real and should show the mark as actually used.
4. [For Section 15: Read the two statements about decisions and proceedings, and the attached proceedings check.]
5. Tell us if anything looks wrong, out of date, or unfamiliar, or if you are relying on someone else for a fact you cannot check. It is far better to raise a concern now, even a small one.

You will receive an email link. You must enter your own signature. No one may enter it for you, including an assistant or our staff.

Do not sign if you do not believe the statements are true.

Signer's confirmation (reply email).

I reviewed the declaration, the goods list, the proof table, and the specimen for [MARK] on [date]. [I checked (records) myself / I relied on (name) for (fact).] Based on that review, I believe the statements are true. I will personally enter my signature.

Drafting notes. Who may sign: 37 C.F.R. § 2.193(e)(1). The declaration language: 37 C.F.R. § 2.20; see also 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The memo answers both standards in play: Bose asks what the signer believed, and Chutter, Inc. v. Great Concepts, LLC, 2021 WL 4494251 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2021), reversed on other grounds, asks whether the signer made an appropriate inquiry. The memo from counsel is likely privileged; the signer's factual confirmation may need to be produced if good faith is raised, so write it with that in mind and keep it factual. Do not paste legal advice into it. On privilege strategy, see Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product for Businesses. Prepared signers help, but a process followed by rote can hurt: an identical reply on forty filings in one sitting reads like no review at all.

Template 7: Filing vendor and representation diligence

Purpose: avoid losing a record to someone else's misconduct. Owner: in-house lead or business owner. Timing: before engaging any filer; repeat if a warning sign appears.

Drafting notes. Foreign-domiciled owners need a U.S.-licensed attorney under 37 C.F.R. § 2.11(a), and false information about representation counts as an improper purpose under § 2.11(e). Domicile: §§ 2.2(o)-(p), 2.189, and In re Chestek PLLC, 92 F.4th 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The stakes are shown by In re Stelcore Management Services, LLC, 2025 Commr. Pat. LEXIS 3 (Dir. USPTO 2025) (precedential), the August 2025 Shenzhen Seller Growth Network order (more than 52,000 applications and registrations terminated, per the USPTO's announcement), and the April 2026 Shenzhen Huanyee order (more than 19,000 submissions across at least 15,932 records). Remember that the USPTO's terms of use tie each account to its verified user. The agency's page on foreign filing firms soliciting U.S. attorneys is here.

Template 8: Deletion decision record and request language

Purpose: record why a good came off, and do it the right way. Owner: trademark counsel; business lead signs off. Timing: whenever Template 2 shows a good not in use.

Decision record.

Section 7 request (delete-only).

Registrant requests amendment of the registration under Section 7(e) to delete the following from the identification in International Class [ ]: [goods]. As amended, the identification in that class reads: [goods]. The signatory, being warned as provided in 37 C.F.R. § 2.20, declares that the statements made of his or her own knowledge are true and that statements on information and belief are believed to be true.

Stipulated deletion in a pending proceeding (motion).

Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 2.133(a), Respondent moves, with the written consent of Petitioner attached, to amend Registration No. [ ] to delete [goods]. [The parties further stipulate that (state effect on the fraud claim: dismissal with or without prejudice as negotiated).]

Examples of file notes. Write factually, and do not characterize.

• Good: "Honey line ended 18 Nov 2022 (final invoice 5420). No plans to resume. Removed from identification on [date]."
• Avoid: "We have been overclaiming honey for years and need to clean this up before anyone notices."

Drafting notes. Authority: 15 U.S.C. § 1057(e); 37 C.F.R. § 2.173. Under the schedule revised 1 November 2026, a delete-only amendment before a Section 8 has no fee, and a deletion after filing a Section 8 and before acceptance is $250 per class. The "threatened challenge" row matters because proactive correction supports a rebuttable presumption of no intent (Zanella Ltd. v. Nordstrom, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1758 (T.T.A.B. 2009)), while deletion after a challenge is no cure (Turbo Sportswear, Inc. v. Marmot Mountain Ltd., 77 USPQ2d 1152 (T.T.A.B. 2005)). In a pending cancellation, an unconsented deletion invites judgment, as Labs learned in G&W under 37 C.F.R. § 2.134(a). In an expungement or reexamination, by contrast, deletion moots the proceeding for those goods (§ 2.93(d)(3)). Do not reinsert goods; start fresh with a new Section 1(b) application.

Template 9: Correction route matrix

Purpose: choose the tool that fits the error. Owner: trademark counsel. Timing: on discovery of a problem, ideally the same week.

Drafting notes. All section references are to 37 C.F.R. Part 2. Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Kendrick, 85 USPQ2d 1032 (T.T.A.B. 2007), predates Bose, but it shows a correction made under attack gets little credit. The limit on signature correction comes from Stelcore and TMEP § 611.01(b).

Template 10: Claim selection matrix

Purpose: decide whether fraud belongs in the pleading at all. Owner: challenger's counsel. Timing: before drafting.

Drafting notes. Grounds and timing: 15 U.S.C. § 1064; 15 U.S.C. § 1066a; 15 U.S.C. § 1066b. On the "others used it" theory: Rosso & Mastracco, Inc. v. Giant Food Inc., 720 F.2d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order v. Florida Priory, 702 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2012). Forms for the cheaper routes are in the TTAB Practice Toolkit and the Trademark Expungement and Reexamination Checklist.

Template 11: TTAB fraud pleading frames

Purpose: paragraphs that meet Bose and Rule 9(b). Owner: challenger's counsel. Timing: petition, notice of opposition, or counterclaim.

A. Entitlement.

1. Petitioner [describes real interest: competitor; applicant whose Serial No. [ ] was refused under Section 2(d) citing the Registration on [date]; recipient of a demand dated [ ]]. Petitioner has a real interest in this proceeding and a reasonable belief that it is damaged by the Registration.

B. Procurement or statement of use (overclaim).

2. On [date], Respondent filed [a statement of use / application] for the mark [ ], signed by [name], [title], identifying [goods].

3. In that filing, [name] declared under 37 C.F.R. § 2.20 that the mark was in use in commerce on or in connection with all of the identified goods.

4. That statement was false as to [specific goods]. As of [date], Respondent had not sold or transported those goods under the mark in commerce. [State the facts supporting this.]

5. The statement was material, because the Office would not have registered the mark for those goods without it.

6. [Name] knew the statement was false when it was made because [specific facts, such as role, public statements, internal knowledge shown by named documents].

7. Respondent made the statement with the intent to deceive the Office into [issuing / maintaining] a registration to which it was not otherwise entitled.

C. Maintenance.

8. On [date], Respondent filed a declaration under Section 8, signed by [name], stating that the mark was in use in commerce on [goods] and attaching [specimen]. Respondent [had ceased selling (goods) by (date)], as shown by [facts]. [Remaining allegations as in paragraphs 5 to 7.]

D. Fabricated specimen.

9. The specimen filed with [filing] purports to show [describe, such as three sales to named purchasers]. [State what makes it false, such as: the shipping addresses shown do not exist, as confirmed by (source) on (date); the product photograph was published by (third party) on (date) with no mark.]

10. Respondent knew the specimen was not a genuine record of use because [facts]. In the alternative, Respondent submitted it with reckless disregard for its truth, in that [facts showing conscious disregard of a known risk].

E. Section 15 only (relief limited).

11. In its declaration of [date], Respondent, through [name], stated that no proceeding involving its rights was pending. [Proceeding] was then pending, as [name] knew. Petitioner requests a determination that the Registration is not entitled to incontestable status and such further relief as the Board may order. Petitioner does not seek cancellation on this ground.

Drafting notes. The rule: Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) applies through 37 C.F.R. § 2.116(a). "Should have known" and unsupported "information and belief" fail (Asian & Western Classics B.V. v. Selkow, 92 USPQ2d 1478 (T.T.A.B. 2009); Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Allege intent in terms, as DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. American Motors Corp., Canc. No. 92045099 (T.T.A.B. 2010), recommends. Meckatzer holds you need not name an individual with the intent, but name one if you can. Paragraph 10's alternative rests on Look Cycle. The last sentence of paragraph 11 reflects Great Concepts; if the Section 8 half of the form is also false, use Frame C as well. Pleading a separate nonuse count is almost always wise. The petition fee is $600 per class on the schedule revised 1 November 2026. For entitlement, see Corcamore, LLC v. SFM, LLC, 978 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

Template 12: Federal counterclaim frame and Section 38 count

Purpose: add what a court may require beyond the TTAB elements. Owner: litigation counsel. Timing: answer or amended pleading.

Count [ ]: Cancellation under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1064(3) and 1119

[Paragraphs as in Template 11, then:]

[ ]. The Office relied on the statement. [Facts: the examiner issued the notice of allowance or accepted the declaration after the statement; no later filing disclosed the true facts.] That reliance was reasonable, because [ ].

[ ]. Counterclaimant has been damaged as a proximate result of that reliance, in that [Plaintiff asserts the resulting registration against Counterclaimant in this action; Counterclaimant's Serial No. [ ] was refused].

Count [ ]: Damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1120

[ ]. Counterclaim-Defendant procured Registration No. [ ] by the false declaration described above.

[ ]. Counterclaimant was injured in consequence of the registration, apart from any rights Plaintiff may have through use, as follows: [injury caused by the registration itself, such as marketplace removals made on the strength of the registration or a lost transaction requiring clear title; describe amount and date]. Counterclaim-Defendant has no right to exclusive use of the mark because [facts].

Drafting notes. Add the reliance and damage elements required by OTR Wheel Engineering, Inc. v. West Worldwide Services, Inc., 897 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2018), and test them against the file history: Madaket LLC v. Sweet Grace Distilling Co., No. 23-2928 (D.D.C. June 21, 2024), dismissed because a later curative submission made reliance implausible. In federal court, plead actual knowledge and do not count on recklessness: La Terra Fina USA, LLC v. Reser's Fine Foods, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-2631 (N.D. Cal. May 3, 2024), and Florida Virtual School v. K12, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-2354 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 1, 2023). The last sentence of the damages count tracks Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Missouri, Inc., 989 F.2d 985 (8th Cir. 1993), which requires an infringer seeking those damages to show the owner has no right to exclusive use. Check limitations: the Third Circuit borrows the state fraud period for Section 38 (Beauty Time, Inc. v. VU Skin Systems, Inc., 118 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 1997)), even though cancellation has none (Marshak v. Treadwell, 240 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2001)). Foreign counterclaim defendants: Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Ltd., 140 F.4th 1304 (11th Cir. 2025). For jurisdictional allegations, see the Federal Jurisdiction Toolkit.

Template 13: Motion to dismiss outline

Purpose: a structure for attacking a thin fraud count. Owner: defense counsel. Timing: response date. At the Board, the answer date is set in the institution order (37 C.F.R. § 2.113(a)).

1. Standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and Rule 9(b): who, what, when, where, how.
2. No false statement identified. Quote the actual declaration. Colón-Lorenzana v. South American Restaurants Corp., 799 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 2015).
3. Statement not required, or not false. Example: failure to disclose a related-company arrangement, NRRM, LLC v. Empire Auto Protect, LLC, No. 4:25-cv-716 (E.D. Mo. 2026).
4. No knowledge or intent pleaded. "Should have known" is negligence (Bose; Asian & Western Classics). In court: La Terra Fina; the Second Circuit's rejection in MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino, 826 F.3d 653 (2d Cir. 2016).
5. Oath theory fails. Awareness of other users is not knowledge of superior rights. Rosso; Quiksilver, Inc. v. Kymsta Corp., 466 F.3d 749 (9th Cir. 2006).
6. Speculation about specimens. La Terra Fina (a white background is not an allegation of falsity).
7. Immaterial statement. Date of first use (Hiraga; Angel Flight of Georgia, Inc. v. Angel Flight America, Inc., 522 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2008)).
8. No reliance, where required. OTR Wheel; Madaket.
9. Section 15 cannot support cancellation. Great Concepts. Address Robi and Residential Energy Services in the Ninth Circuit.
10. No Section 38 injury. Gilbert/Robinson; Country Mutual Insurance Co. v. American Farm Bureau Federation, 876 F.2d 599 (7th Cir. 1989), if no registration has issued.
11. Relief. Dismissal; alternatively, narrowing to specific goods and class. Note G&W limits any fraud remedy to the affected class.

Drafting notes. Weigh education against benefit. The Board in Asian & Western Classics allowed twenty days to replead, and courts usually grant leave. Include points 3, 7, or 9 where the defect is legal and cannot be pleaded around. At the Board, the involved registration file is automatically of record (37 C.F.R. § 2.122(b)), so you can argue from it.

Template 14: Answer and defense bank

Purpose: responses that avoid both overdenial and accidental waiver. Owner: defense counsel. Timing: answer; review before verification of any interrogatory answer.

Denial with amplification.

[ ]. Denied. Respondent states that as of [date] it had sold [goods] under the mark in commerce, including sales to [general description].

Admit the filing, deny the characterization.

[ ]. Respondent admits that on [date] it filed the document identified, which speaks for itself, and otherwise denies the allegations of this paragraph.

Partial admission of inaccuracy, denying intent.

[ ]. Respondent admits that as of [date] the goods identified as [goods] were no longer being sold, and that the declaration listed them. Respondent denies that the listing was knowing, that it was intended to deceive the Office, and the remaining allegations.

Defense bank.

Drafting notes. Do not plead reliance on counsel in the answer until you have decided to waive; the words "on advice of counsel" can start a privilege fight. Laches and estoppel are poor fits against a claim that protects the register, per Marshak's reasoning. A compulsory counterclaim may be due with the answer if you are attacking the challenger's own pleaded registration (37 C.F.R. § 2.114(b)(3)). Do not rely on the fraud count's weakness to ignore the risk of a fee award: in Weems Industries, Inc. v. Teknor Apex Co., Nos. 24-3608, 25-2956 (8th Cir. July 30, 2026), the registrant won summary judgment on fraud and still paid over $3 million under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).

Template 15: Discovery topics (both sides)

Purpose: target discovery at falsity, knowledge, and intent. Owner: each side's counsel. Timing: after the discovery conference and initial disclosures (37 C.F.R. § 2.120(a)). TTAB limits: 75 interrogatories, 75 requests for production, and 75 requests for admission, counting subparts (§ 2.120(d), (e), (i)).

Interrogatories (Fed. R. Civ. P. 33).

1. For each of [goods], state the first and last date of sale or shipment under the mark in U.S. commerce, by year, and identify the persons most knowledgeable.
2. Identify every person who prepared, reviewed, signed, or submitted [filing], and describe each person's role.
3. Describe the steps taken before signing [filing] to confirm the statements in it.
4. Identify the source of each specimen: who created it, when, and how.
5. State when and how Respondent first learned that any statement in [filing] was inaccurate, and what it did in response.
6. Identify each USPTO.gov account used for [filing], and who has used it.

Requests for production (Fed. R. Civ. P. 34).

1. Sales data sufficient to show annual unit sales by product for each of [goods] from [date].
2. Native files, with metadata, of each specimen and any earlier drafts or source images.
3. Non-privileged communications with any filing vendor concerning [filing], including invoices.
4. Non-privileged communications discussing whether to include, retain, or delete any of [goods].
5. Documents showing licensee quality control, if use by others is claimed.
6. Documents showing plans for any good listed in an intent-to-use filing, dated before filing.

Requests for admission (Fed. R. Civ. P. 36).

1. Admit that as of [date], Respondent had not sold [good] under the mark in U.S. commerce.
2. Admit that [name] signed [filing].
3. Admit that [name] personally entered the signature.
4. Admit that [name] knew on [date] that Respondent had discontinued [good].
5. Admit that [proceeding] was pending on [date].

Rule 30(b)(6) topics (Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)).

1. Sales and marketing of [goods] under the mark, by year.
2. The preparation and filing of [filing], excluding privileged content.
3. The creation and source of each specimen.
4. Any review of use before filing, and any deletion, amendment, or correction.
5. Licensing and control of the mark.
6. Document retention affecting these topics.

Defendant's discovery of the challenger.

1. All facts supporting each allegation of knowledge and intent.
2. The investigation that supports paragraph [ ] (subject to work product).
3. Each injury attributed to the registration, for any Section 38 count.
4. The challenger's own use and any filings with similar statements.

Drafting notes. Privilege logs will matter, because the people who prepared the filing are often lawyers. Log carefully under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5); see Preparing a Privilege Log: A Practical Checklist. The record in Chutter was built largely from the discovery depositions of the attorney, the paralegal, and the principal. Fuller forms are in Discovery Practice in TTAB Trademark Proceedings.

Template 16: Signer deposition outline

Purpose: cover the facts a fraud finding or a good-faith defense will rest on. Owner: taking counsel; defending counsel uses it to prepare. Timing: after documents are in.

1. Background. Role at signing, responsibility for the product lines, prior trademark experience.
2. The document. Show the filing. Is that your signature? Did you personally enter it? How did the form reach you? How long did you spend on it? Did you read the goods list, and the warning?
3. Meaning. What did you understand "in use in commerce" to mean? Where did that understanding come from (subject to privilege)? What did "no proceeding pending" mean to you?
4. Facts at the time. For each challenged good: did you know whether it was being sold? How? Who would know? Did you ask? Any documents reviewed?
5. The specimen. Did you look at it? Do you know where it came from? Do you recognize the addresses or order numbers on it?
6. Others. Who prepared the form? What did they tell you (non-privileged)? Did anyone raise a concern?
7. After signing. When did you first learn of any inaccuracy? What did you do? Why was it not corrected until [date]?
8. Motive. What was the registration being used for? Was it asserted against anyone? Did a sales channel or marketplace require it?

Drafting notes. Questions 2, 4, and 7 tie to the Board's reasoning in Chutter (read and inquire; correct when told). Question 3 tracks the protected belief in Bose, which held the reasonableness of the belief is not part of the analysis, so a defender should elicit the belief itself. Question 8 goes to the circumstantial case. Experience alone is not evidence of intent (Embarcadero). Documents used to refresh a witness may have to be produced: Fed. R. Evid. 612. For privilege instructions and how to make the record, see the Deposition Conduct Toolkit and Deposition Practice Toolkit.

Template 17: Response to a fraud demand letter

Purpose: answer without admissions, while preserving options. Owner: counsel. Timing: after a hold is in place and a quick internal audit is done. Usually within two to three weeks.

[Date]

Re: [MARK], Reg. No. [ ]

Dear [Name]:

We represent [Owner] and have reviewed your letter of [date].

Your letter asserts that [Owner] committed fraud on the USPTO. A claim of that kind requires a knowing, material misrepresentation made with intent to deceive, established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Your letter identifies [no specific false statement / only the following statement: (quote)].

[Owner] takes the accuracy of its filings seriously and is reviewing the matter. [If you have specific facts supporting your assertion, please send them.] [Owner] reserves all rights.

[Optional: Without any admission, and subject to Fed. R. Evid. 408, [Owner] is willing to discuss a resolution of the parties' underlying concern, including the scope of the identification.]

Sincerely,

[Attorney]

Drafting notes. The letter likely closes the window for the Zanella presumption, so decide promptly whether to delete anyway. If no proceeding has begun, a deletion is still possible without the § 2.134 trap, and may remove the challenger's motive, even if it does not cure anything. Settlement talks are covered by Fed. R. Evid. 408, within its limits. Issue a litigation hold before replying. Do not explain how an error happened until counsel has finished the review. Do not threaten fees you cannot support. If your client is the one sending the letter, start with the Drafting a Trademark Cease-and-Desist Letter Checklist, and include the specific statement and facts, because a vague accusation of fraud gives the recipient an easy reply.

Template 18: Show cause response outline

Purpose: protect an innocent owner's record when a filer is named in a USPTO order. Owner: U.S. trademark counsel. Timing: at once; orders set a response date, about thirty days in recent orders.

1. Caption and identification. Name the order, the date, the serial or registration numbers, and the owner. State that you respond on behalf of the owner and not the respondents.
2. Facts of engagement. Who the owner hired, when, how, and what it paid (attach invoices and communications).
3. What the owner did not do. Did not enter signatures; did not know of the respondent's practices; did not provide false information. Attach a declaration, personally signed.
4. Real use or intent. Sales, specimens, and dates (Templates 2 to 4).
5. Request. Removal of the identified records from the proceeding, or in the alternative, time to perfect with a proper signature and new counsel, to the extent the agency allows.
6. Corrective steps. New attorney appointed; correct owner email and domicile; new declaration if allowed.
7. Reservation of rights. As to the agency's authority to reopen a registration decision and as to review.

Parallel step: file a new application in the owner's name, personally signed, on a proper basis, without waiting for the outcome.

Drafting notes. In the Huanyee matter, the USPTO allowed about thirty days from the January 27, 2026 notice, sent courtesy notices to owners of record, and received three owner responses. It denied two based on filing data and granted one. Sanctions authority: 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(c). The agency's position is that certain defective signatures cannot be cured (Stelcore; TMEP § 611.01(b)), so do not assume a substitute verification will work. The reservation in item 7 is deliberate. Great Concepts emphasizes statutory limits on Board cancellation, and the reopening mechanism has not, in the sources we found, been tested on appeal. Calendar any review deadline immediately. The orders themselves are available through the USPTO's decisions and proceedings search tool.

This toolkit is general information and not legal advice for a specific situation.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• Fraud on the USPTO: How a False Declaration Can Cost You a Trademark Registration: the doctrine behind these templates.
• Discovery Practice in TTAB Trademark Proceedings: how Board discovery differs.
• Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product for Businesses: Upjohn, In-House Counsel, and the Common Interest: separating use facts from advice.

Related Guides

• Auditing a Trademark Filing for Fraud Risk and Defending a Fraud Claim: A Practical Guide: when and how to use each template.

Related Checklists

• Trademark Declaration Accuracy Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the pre-signature desk list.
• Trademark Expungement and Reexamination Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the alternatives in Template 10.
• Trademark Ownership Audit Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the chain-of-title check.
• Trademark Specimen Preparation Checklist: A Practical Checklist: the capture step behind Template 4.
• Preparing a Privilege Log: A Practical Checklist: logging counsel's filing communications.
• Drafting a Trademark Cease-and-Desist Letter Checklist: A Practical Checklist: sending a demand that alleges false filings.

Related Toolkits

• TTAB Practice Toolkit: Oppositions, Cancellations, and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from Pleading to Appeal: the wider Board forms.
• Register Clearing Toolkit: Nonuse Investigations, Petition Templates, and Post-Registration Audit Responses: nonuse investigations and audit responses.
• Trademark Function Toolkit: Specimen Audits, Secondary Source Evidence, and Office Action Response Outlines: specimen audit technique.
• Deposition Conduct Toolkit: Objection Scripts, Record-Making Language, and Rule 30(d) Motions: making the record at the signer's deposition.
• Deposition Practice Toolkit: Taking, Defending, and Using Depositions in Federal Litigation: general deposition forms.
• Federal Jurisdiction Toolkit: Notices of Removal, Remand Motions, and Jurisdictional Allegations: pleading jurisdiction for the counterclaim.