Raxx · internal docs

internal · gated

Ramp Payment Solutions LLC — RAXX Reg. 7779396 Ownership + Opposition Risk

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.

TL;DR (3 sentences)

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.

Facts (with citations)

USPTO Registration

Wisconsin Entity — Identity Confirmed

Operating Business — Real Commerce Confirmed

"Famous Ramp" — Confirmed NOT the Same Entity

Trademark Goods/Services — Class 36 Overlap Assessment

No Opposition/Cancellation History Found

Opposition Risk Classification

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).

Options Compared

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

Jurisdiction Flags

Timing / Deadlines

Questions for Your Trademark Attorney (Crosby)

  1. Based on the full prosecution history and specimen of use for Reg. 7779396 (TSDR file wrapper), how strong is the §2(d) argument against Kristerpher's application given the Class 36 vs. Class 9/42 difference and the distinct consumer/channel profiles?
  2. Is the "channels of trade / consumer sophistication" argument viable for distinguishing a Wisconsin POS payment processor from an algorithmic trading software platform? What precedents support or undermine this?
  3. Should a consent agreement / coexistence letter be sent to Ramp Payment Solutions LLC proactively, and if so, what leverage or consideration would make them likely to agree?
  4. What is the probability the examiner would issue a §2(d) refusal vs. allow the application given the class distance? Has Crosby seen this examiner's pattern on financial-tech §2(d) situations?
  5. Is it worth ordering the Wisconsin DFI annual report copies (Officer/Director information) for Ramp Payment Solutions LLC to identify the principals for any consent negotiation? (DFI annual report copies can be ordered at https://apps.dfi.wi.gov/apps/oos)
  6. Does the specimen of use filed by Ramp Payment Solutions for Reg. 7779396 cover actual POS/payment software or purely financial services language? If it's limited to brick-and-mortar POS, does that help Kristerpher's argument?
  7. Should Kristerpher's application services description be narrowed proactively before any office action to widen the distinction from payment processing?

Sources