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.
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.
Crosby's 2026-05-05 reply contains two distinct statements that must be read together:
"We can amend the identification of goods as you suggested." Amendment is procedurally available — it is not being refused.
"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
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
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:
Factor 1 — Similarity of the marks: RAXX vs. RAXX — identical. This factor weighs
maximally against the applicant. An identical mark creates a strong presumption toward
confusion. Source: USPTO likelihood of confusion guidance,
https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion
Factor 2 — Relatedness of goods/services: The cited identification includes "payment processing of funds transferred through an online payment platform," "financial transaction services," and "electronic processing of charge card transactions ... via a global computer network." An examining attorney may conclude that software enabling financial transactions for retail investors is commercially related to electronic payment processing services — both involve software-mediated financial transactions over the internet. This is the live risk Crosby is flagging.
Factor 3 — Channels of trade: Raxx's actual channels (retail investor-facing trading software, fintech subscription SaaS) differ materially from Ramp Payment Solutions' channels (bar/restaurant POS, merchant accounts). However, because the USPTO reads the registration's identification — not the actual commerce — and the cited identification is written broadly ("online payment platform," "global computer network"), the channel distinction is harder to establish from the identification text alone.
Factor 5 — Consumer sophistication: Retail investors using options trading software are arguably more sophisticated than average consumers; Ramp Payment Solutions' merchant customers are small businesses. This factor could favor the applicant — but examining attorneys do not always credit it when marks are identical.
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
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.
| 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 |
docs/legal/research/github-org-pre-llc-2026-05-06.md addendum.Office action response: Once a §2(d) OA issues (if the application is filed and
examined), the applicant has 3 months to respond (extendable to 6 months for a fee).
Missing the deadline abandons the application with no revival available.
Source: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/apply/check-status-view-documents
Coexistence negotiation window: If Crosby recommends pursuing consent, outreach should happen before publication, not after an opposition is filed. Once a 30-day opposition window opens and the opposing party files, the procedural posture shifts to a TTAB proceeding, which is more expensive.
§14 cancellation timeliness: If Reg. 7779396 was issued in 2024, the 5-year window for certain grounds has not closed. Confirm the exact registration date from TSDR — Crosby should pull the file wrapper as part of his assessment.
LLC formation timing: The operator has not yet formed the Raxx LLC. Filing a trademark
application in personal name (then assigning to the LLC post-formation) is procedurally
valid but requires a documented assignment with goodwill. This adds one administrative
step. If the LLC forms before filing, the LLC is the direct applicant — cleaner chain
of title. See docs/business/entity-structure.md.
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:
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"?
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").
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)?
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?
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?
https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/print?version=current&href=TMEP-1200d1e5044.htmlhttps://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1207-01-a-iii.htmlhttps://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1064https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusionhttps://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/ttab/initiating-new-proceedinghttps://www.altlegal.com/blog/how-to-use-a-trademark-consent-agreement-to-overcome-a-2d-refusal/https://www.altlegal.com/blog/overcoming-%C2%A72d-part2/https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/2020-modernization-acthttps://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qs=raxxdocs/legal/research/ramp-payment-solutions-raxx-ownership-2026-04-30.md