Competitive Intelligence: Using Trademark Filings to Monitor the Market
Success in business extends beyond offering an exceptional product—it requires keen insight into your market landscape and awareness of where your competitors may be headed next. One powerful, yet often underutilized tool for gaining this strategic advantage is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) trademark database.
Trademark filings can be early indicators of business strategy, product development, brand launches, market expansion and more. At Parsons Behle & Latimer, we help clients use public trademark records as a vital component of their competitive intelligence efforts.
Here’s how your business can benefit from this approach:
Identify New Products and Brands Before Launch
Most companies file trademark applications prior to announcing a new product or service. Applications filed on an “Intent-to-Use” basis can signal upcoming launches.
Example: A rival has filed a trademark application for NEWBRAND based on intent to use the mark for a downloadable mobile app. They haven’t publicly announced the launch, but now you know they’re gearing up for a potential expansion in that space.
Monitor Market Expansion
Trademark filings often reveal when a business is preparing to enter a new category or expand internationally. Watch for filings in new classes of goods/services or Madrid Protocol applications targeting new countries.
Example: A U.S.-based health brand starts filing trademark applications in the EU and Japan. That’s a sign of global expansion—and a signal to review your own international protection.
Identify Gaps or Weaknesses in Competitors’ Portfolios
Trademark records can also reveal areas where competitors lack protection—highlighting potential risks or opportunities for your brand. Look for:
· Marks that were abandoned or never used
· Gaps in key classes of goods/services
· Office Actions indicating registration issues
Example: A competing beverage company fails to maintain registration for an old product line. This might signal an opportunity for expansion into that segment with less risk.
Track Rebranding and Strategy Shifts
Changes in trademark filings can offer clues about broader corporate movements, such as mergers, rebranding or new market positioning.
Example: You spot a series of new logo filings by a competitor under a new holding company name. That may signal a broader shift or new investment round.
Proactively Prepare for Potential Conflicts
Trademark filings are often the first signal of a potential infringement or legal conflict. Monitoring these applications enables you to respond swiftly—whether by opposing an application, negotiating a coexistence agreement or adjusting your branding.
How We Help
At Parsons Behle & Latimer, we provide:
· Trademark monitoring and watch services
· Portfolio analysis to identify vulnerabilities or emerging trends
· Alerts for conflicting applications
· Strategic guidance on protections to safeguard your brand
Final Thought
In today’s competitive landscape, knowledge is power. By monitoring public trademark records, you gain critical insights—without stepping outside the boundaries of the law.
Ready to start tracking your trademark activity? Contact us today to develop a customized trademark watch strategy tailored to your industry.
“Mere Consumers” Have No Standing to Oppose Trademark Registrations
The Federal Circuit recently concluded that consumers do not have statutory standing to oppose trademark registrations under 15 U.S.C. § 1063, all but limiting opposition proceedings to commercial actors with competitive interests in the marketplace. In Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc.,[1] the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Rebecca Curtin’s opposition to United Trademark Holdings, Inc.’s (UTH) application to register “RAPUNZEL” in International Class 28 for dolls and toy figures. Curtin is a doll collector and mother who purchases princess dolls, including Rapunzel dolls. She claims that she—and other consumers—will be injured due to being “denied access to healthy marketplace competition for products that represent” Rapunzel.[2] According to Ms. Curtin, if “private companies are allowed to trademark the name of a famous fairytale character in the public domain,” then consumers will be forced to pay higher prices and the registration could have a chilling effect on the creation of new dolls.[3] Curtin filed an opposition under 15 U.S.C. § 1063, challenging UTH’s registration as descriptive, generic and failing to function as a trademark. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) rejected Curtin’s opposition, concluding that she lacked standing under the Lanham Act to challenge the registration. The Federal Circuit agreed.
Section 13 of the Lanham Act(15 U.S.C. § 1063) states that “[a]ny person who believes that he would be damaged by the registration of a mark upon the principal register . . . may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, file an opposition[.]” While this language is quite broad, the Federal Circuit has limited its application to opposers that fall within the framework articulated in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014). This framework required Curtin to show that (1) her interests were within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute and (2) she had a reasonable belief that damage would be proximately caused by the registration. Under the first prong, the Court explained that “only commercial actors affected by the mark’s registration . . . [may] oppose the registration[.]”[4] Curtin, a “mere consumer,” did not meet this requirement.
Turning to the second prong, the Federal Circuit also concluded that Curtin’s alleged harms suffered from RAPUNZEL’s registration were too remote to fulfil the proximate cause requirement. This is because Curtin’s alleged harms depend first on the registration’s effect on other, downstream commercial actors. Not only that, but Curtin relied solely on “general economic theories” that are too speculative to support a reasonable belief in injury.
The impact of this decision is clear: parties with direct commercial interests—such as competitors or potential market entrants—have standing to oppose registrations on grounds such as genericness and descriptiveness. “Mere consumers” that purchase goods or services do not. Curtin has already initiated her appeal, and briefing is due to the Supreme Court on Oct. 3, 2025.
If you have any questions about standing in TTAB proceedings, Parsons’ attorneys are highly-qualified to assist clients in a wide range of intellectual property issues, including cancellation and opposition proceedings. Please let us know how we can help your business in this regard.
[1] 137 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
[2] Id. at 1370.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.; see also Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 132 (2014) (“A consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product may well have an injury-in-fact cognizable under Article III, but he cannot invoke the protection of the Lanham Act[.]”).
