Raxx · internal docs

internal · gated

RAXX Trademark — §2(d) Conflict Analysis (Attorney Signal: Crosby 2026-05-05)

Status: research-only. This document does NOT constitute legal or tax advice. Before filing, amending, abandoning, or taking any other action with respect to a USPTO application, consult a trademark attorney admitted to practice before the USPTO. Matthew Crosby (Schwartz IP Law) is the engaged IP counsel on this matter. Last updated: 2026-05-06. Sources as of that date — verify freshness before use.

TL;DR

Matthew Crosby's 2026-05-05 reply signals that the operator's proposed amendment to the identification of goods/services is unlikely to resolve the §2(d) likelihood-of-confusion risk because the USPTO analyzes the registered identification text — not the specimen of use or the registrant's real-world commerce — when deciding relatedness. The cited RAXX registration (Reg. 7779396, Ramp Payment Solutions LLC, Class 36) covers payment processing and financial-transaction services broadly; Raxx's application (Classes 9 and 42 — trading software) is in different classes but the financial-technology adjacency is material to a §2(d) analysis. Five strategic paths are identified below for Crosby's evaluation; none should be acted on without attorney guidance.

Facts (with citations)

The attorney's signal — what Matthew is telling us

Crosby's 2026-05-05 reply contains two distinct statements that must be read together:

  1. "We can amend the identification of goods as you suggested." Amendment is procedurally available — it is not being refused.

  2. "I don't think that change will influence the risk of an alleged conflict." This is the substantive signal: the §2(d) analysis will be driven by the cited registration's identification text, not by the registrant's real-world commercial activity or Ramp Payment Solutions' actual customer profile (bar/restaurant POS in Wisconsin).

This maps precisely to the governing USPTO examination rule. TMEP § 1207.01(a)(iii) establishes that "the nature and scope of a party's goods or services must be determined on the basis of the goods or services recited in the application or registration" — not extrinsic evidence such as specimens, commercial context, or actual use patterns. An examining attorney is not permitted to restrict the scope of a cited registration based on how the registrant actually uses the mark in commerce.

Source (TMEP governing authority): - https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?version=current&href=TMEP-1200d1e5044.html - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207-01-a-iii.html

The cited RAXX registration — identification text in full

Per Crosby's letter (primary source: attorney communication 2026-05-05):

Issuing of charge cards; charge card authorization services; charge card transaction processing services; charge card transaction processing services provided via a website; electronic charge card transaction processing; providing electronic processing of charge card transactions and electronic payments via a global computer network; charge card payment processing services; processing of charge card payments; providing an internet-based website portal in the field of payment processing and expense management and tracking related to the use of corporate charge cards; financial transaction services, namely, providing secure commercial transactions and payment options; payment administration services, namely, payment verification services; payment services, namely, credit card payment processing services; merchant services, namely, payment transaction processing integrated with customer communications; payment processing of funds transferred through an online payment platform

Registrant: Ramp Payment Solutions LLC, Wisconsin Rapids, WI Serial No.: 97826727 Registration No.: 7779396 Class: 36 (Financial services) Source: Schwartz IP RAXX search report + Crosby letter 2026-05-05; confirmed via prior BLR research at docs/legal/research/ramp-payment-solutions-raxx-ownership-2026-04-30.md

Why the identification creates a §2(d) problem regardless of class distance

The operator's application is in Classes 9 and 42 (software / SaaS). The cited registration is in Class 36 (financial services). Different international classes do not automatically resolve a §2(d) conflict. Under the du Pont factors (In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973)), the USPTO balances 13 factors. The most commercially significant for this situation:

Key TMEP authority (confirm current edition with Crosby): - TMEP § 1207.01(a)(i): similarity of marks analysis - TMEP § 1207.01(a)(ii): relatedness of goods/services - TMEP § 1207.01(a)(iii): reliance on identification, not specimen - TMEP § 1207.01(d)(viii): consent agreements

Registration vintage and §14 cancellation window

The existing BLR research (ramp-payment-solutions-raxx-ownership-2026-04-30.md) confirms Serial 97826727 / Reg. 7779396. The exact registration date is not confirmed by direct TSDR pull (TSDR returns 403 for direct fetch; TTABVUE returns no proceedings). The registration number 7779396 is in the range consistent with 2024-2025 issuance. If issued in 2024 or later, the §14 cancellation window based on incontestability (5-year mark) has not yet closed. A §14 cancellation on grounds of non-use requires:

Source: 15 U.S.C. § 1064, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1064

However: Ramp Payment Solutions operates an active commerce at raxxpay.com (confirmed in prior research). Non-use abandonment is unlikely to be provable against a business with a live website, active phone service (844-RAXXPAY), and annual DFI filings current through 2025. The cancellation path requires Crosby to assess the prosecution history and specimen.

Options Compared

Path Out-of-pocket cost estimate Timeline Risk / tradeoff Best-fit profile
A — File as-is; respond to §2(d) office action Filing fee ~$350-700/class + attorney response ~$1,500-3,500 per OA round 12-24 months to registration if successful Secures priority date now; OA response may require multiple rounds; examiner may still refuse Committed to RAXX brand; willing to contest; brand equity already invested
B — Amend identification + file; respond to OA Same as A; amendment ~$500-1,000 attorney time Same as A Narrower registration scope post-registration; Crosby's signal is this does not change OA probability materially Committed to RAXX brand; want narrowest possible exposure to third-party claims
C — File §1(b) intent-to-use; defer Class 42 to SOU Filing fee ~$350/class + extension fees ~$150/class per 6-month period; max 3 years to SOU Secures priority date now; 6-36 months to SOU §1(b) requires bona fide intent at filing; OA risk is same as §1(a); delays proof-of-use obligation Pre-commercial; LLC not yet formed; want time to assess conflict before committing to full filing
D — Negotiate coexistence agreement with Ramp Payment Solutions Attorney fees ~$2,000-5,000 negotiation; possible consideration to other party Unpredictable — days to months depending on their responsiveness Fastest path to registration if consent obtained; requires outreach + engagement; they may demand consideration or refuse Timeline pressure is high; attorney advises consent is viable given profile of registrant
E — §14 cancellation petition (non-use or fraud grounds) Attorney fees ~$5,000-15,000+ for TTAB petition + evidence 12-36 months for cancellation proceeding Ramp Payment Solutions appears to be actively using the mark; non-use petition is unlikely to succeed; fraud requires proof of intentional misrepresentation Only viable if TSDR specimen review reveals non-use or fraud — requires Crosby to pull file wrapper
F — Pivot mark (rebrand away from RAXX) Rebranding cost (domains, GitHub org, design assets, code) + new filing fees ~$350-700/class Rebranding: variable; new filing: 12-18 months to registration Eliminates §2(d) conflict entirely; brand investment to date is lost; GitHub org (raxx-app) and domains (raxx.app, getraxx.com) were created under RAXX If attorney advises §2(d) risk is not manageable and brand investment is still low enough to pivot

Jurisdiction Flags

Timing / Deadlines

Questions for Your Trademark Attorney (Matthew Crosby)

See docs/business/questions-for-attorney.md, Section K (added 2026-05-06) for the full staged question list. Priority questions for the next communication with Crosby:

  1. Given the cited registration's identification (full text above), what is your assessment of §2(d) likelihood-of-confusion probability for our application as tightened per the 2026-04-30 letter? Is this a "likely OA / winnable response" or a "near-certain OA / uncertain outcome"?

  2. Is the cited registration vulnerable to §14 cancellation? Pull the TSDR file wrapper on Serial 97826727 — review the specimen for actual use scope, and assess whether the specimen supports the breadth of the identification (particularly "financial transaction services" and "online payment platform").

  3. Should we pursue a coexistence agreement with Ramp Payment Solutions LLC proactively? Is there negotiating leverage given that their actual commerce (bar/restaurant POS) is materially different from ours (retail investor software)?

  4. If we file and receive a §2(d) OA, what is the realistic cost and timeline to respond through examination and, if necessary, through TTAB?

  5. Given the GitHub org (raxx-app) created 2026-05-05 UTC and the domain investments in raxx.app and getraxx.com, at what brand-investment threshold does a mark pivot become more disruptive than a §2(d) fight?

Sources