Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comClient Alert
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: June 17, 2025
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
Many trademark scammers send official looking letters or emails urging immediate action to pressure you to pay them money for your trademark or “additional” services you do not require. If you ever receive a notice asking for payment as to your trademark from any such company, DO NOT PAY IT. To all our clients, we will be your point contact at the trademark office, and all fees are paid through our firm.
With scams related to U.S. trademark filings becoming more common and sophisticated, it is important to be vigilant. Business fraud prevention strategies can help protect your intellectual property investments. Fraudulent trademark correspondence is so prevalent that the USPTO even has its own list of scammers. We have also included some examples below.
To appear legitimate, scammers often use official government data publicly available from USPTO records and have company names that sound like government agencies. While the information contained in these solicitations may be accurate (for example, that a filing is due to keep a registration active), using these private services is never a requirement of trademark registration. Understanding what are white collar crimes can help you recognize fraudulent schemes targeting trademark holders. While some services may be legitimate (i.e. assistance in responding to an office action), many others are not (i.e. offering to record trademarks in a private registry).
Other fraudulent solicitations purport to be official USPTO correspondence and often urge recipients to take prompt action to avoid losing their trademark rights. Remember for US marks, official correspondence will come from the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, and all emails will be from the domain “@uspto.gov.” Additionally, the USPTO does not issue invoices to trademark owners or ask them to pay fees by email or phone.
If you registered your trademark using an attorney or are represented by counsel in legal proceedings involving your trademark, communications will generally be sent directly to your attorney. Therefore, it is safe to assume that any correspondence purporting to be from the USPTO is fraudulent. How to conduct an effective internal business investigation can help you verify suspicious communications and protect your business interests.
Companies should also consider implementing effective arbitration agreements and business mediation strategies to handle disputes that may arise from fraudulent activities. The Federal Trade Commission’s guidance on avoiding scams provides additional resources for business owners.
Finally, we encourage clients to contact their Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney if there is any question of whether a communication from the USPTO or a third party is legitimate.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

On June 30, 2026, Governor Mikie Sherrill signed Assembly Bill 5328 (P.L.2026, c.25), establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework governing data brokers and certain businesses that sell or license personal information. While the New Jersey data broker law has garnered attention for imposing annual registration fees that can reach $1.5 million, its significance extends well beyond […]
Author: George McGowan

Following near-unanimous passage by both the Assembly and Senate, Governor Sherrill has signed the Power NJ Act (S4296/A4881) into law, formally establishing New Jersey’s first statutory pathway for procuring advanced nuclear energy facilities. As we reported when the Legislature passed the bill, the Power NJ Act directs the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop

On June 30, 2026, the New Jersey Assembly and Senate both approved the “Power NJ Act” (A4881), sending the legislation to Governor Sherrill for signature after unanimous, bipartisan approval. The Power NJ Act would direct the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities, in partnership with the New Jersey Economic Development Authority, to establish a program […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop

If Your Public Officials Conduct Public Business on Personal Accounts, Those Communications May Be Subject to Disclosure under the New Jersey Open Public Records Act (N.J.S.A. 47:1A-1 et seq.). A recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision has direct consequences for every board of education, municipality, and public agency in the state. In Rosetti v. Ramapo-Indian […]
Author: Seraphema Menna

On June 15, 2026, NJDEP adopted final PFAS remediation standards for PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, and GenX, converting interim criteria into enforceable requirements. NJDEP has adopted final remediation standards for PFNA, PFOA, PFOS, and GenX, converting interim criteria into enforceable requirements under N.J.A.C. 7:9C, 7:26D, and 7:26E. The rule establishes a groundwater standard for GenX, incorporates […]
Author: Daniel T. McKillop

A recent Court of Federal Claims decision may entitle taxpayers to refunds of interest and penalties paid on federal tax obligations that came due during the COVID-19 disaster period. The IRS refund deadline tied to that ruling is July 10, 2026, and eligible taxpayers should consider filing a protective claim before it expires. On March […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!