Status: research-only. This document does NOT constitute legal or tax advice. Before filing, amending an application, or acting on any finding below, consult a trademark attorney licensed to practice before the USPTO (Matthew Crosby or equivalent). Last updated: 2026-04-30. Sources as of that date — verify freshness before use.
USPTO Reg. 7779396 / Serial 97826727 (RAXX, Class 36) is owned by Ramp Payment Solutions LLC, a small Wisconsin Rapids, WI payment processor for bars and restaurants — it has no corporate relationship to Ramp Business Corp (NYC, the corporate-card unicorn). The Wisconsin LLC was formed 2021-04-14, operates actively under the brand "Raxx Payment Solutions" at raxxpay.com, and is a real, operating business — but it is regional, lightly resourced, and has no detectable trademark litigation history or outside IP counsel. Opposition risk is classified B — moderate: an examiner §2(d) refusal is likely given the identical mark and overlapping payment-processing language, but active opposition from this entity is unlikely given its profile; the fight will be at examination stage, not at TTAB.
Classification: B — Moderate
| Factor | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Entity type | Small regional LLC, ~5 staff listed publicly, ISO/MSP arrangement (not independent card issuer) |
| Mark centrality | "Raxx" appears to be the core operating brand (raxxpay.com, 844-RAXXPAY) — not peripheral |
| IP sophistication | No IP counsel identified in public records; uses commercial registered-agent service only |
| Litigation history | None found in TTABVUE, news, or court records |
| Resource level | No VC backing, no institutional investors identified; small Wisconsin MSP profile |
| Identical mark | Mark is identical (RAXX = RAXX), which is the strongest factor for examiner refusal |
| Class proximity | Different classes (36 vs 9/42) but financial-tech adjacency creates surface overlap |
| Likely examiner action | §2(d) refusal likely; office action response will be required |
| Likely TTAB opposition | Unlikely — small entity has no demonstrated IP enforcement posture; no counsel on retainer |
Rationale: The identical mark makes an examiner §2(d) refusal the near-certain path, regardless of class difference. However, the registrant is a small regional payment processor with no visible IP enforcement history, no IP counsel, and modest resources. There is no indicator that Ramp Payment Solutions LLC monitors the USPTO publication register for potential conflicts or has the infrastructure to oppose in a 30-day window. The commercial and consumer contexts are meaningfully distinct. A skilled trademark attorney's office-action response distinguishing channels of trade and consumer profiles is the most likely path to registration. Active opposition from Ramp Payment Solutions LLC is a lower-probability outcome, but cannot be ruled out if the mark matters commercially to them (it appears to be their core brand).
| Path | Cost estimate | Likelihood of success | Tradeoff | Best fit |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respond to §2(d) office action with consumer/channel-of-trade distinction argument | Attorney fees ~$1,500–$3,000 per response | Moderate — depends on examiner; not guaranteed | Keeps Raxx brand; requires strong briefing; may need multiple rounds | If Kristerpher is committed to the Raxx brand and willing to contest |
| Amend identification of services to further differentiate from payment processing | Attorney fees ~$500–$1,500 for amendment | Moderate-to-good — narrowing can reduce §2(d) exposure | Narrower registration scope; may limit future trademark protection breadth | If brand commitment is high but registration cost is a concern |
| Seek consent agreement / coexistence with Ramp Payment Solutions LLC | Attorney fees ~$2,000–$5,000 negotiation; possible consideration to other party | Moderate — small entity may be willing; mark is core to their brand | Fastest path to registration if consent obtained; requires outreach and negotiation | If timeline matters and relationship can be established |
| Brand pivot (change mark away from RAXX) | Rebranding cost + new application fees (~$350/class) | High — eliminates §2(d) issue entirely | Loss of any brand equity built; full restart | Only if attorney advises risk too high and §2(d) cannot be overcome |
| No action / abandon application | $0 | N/A | Loss of federal registration; common-law rights may still exist in actual-use geography | Not recommended given business goals |