Identification of Goods/Services Office Action: What Works and What Doesn't

What This Refusal Means

The examiner has concluded that your identification of goods or services is indefinite, too broad, or does not conform to 37 C.F.R. 2.32(a)(6) and the ID Manual. Under TMEP 1402.01, the identification must be "specific, definite, clear, accurate, and concise." This is a compliance refusal -- the examiner is not questioning your mark's registrability, only whether the goods description meets USPTO standards. You may clarify or limit but never expand beyond the original scope (TMEP 1402.06(c)).

Your Options at a Glance

Strategy	Type	Usage	When It Works	When It Doesn't
Goods amendment	Comply	Dominant	Identification uses vague or non-standard language	Language is already from the ID Manual
Commercial impression	Argue	27%	Co-pending 2(d) refusal -- marks create different impressions	Identification issue is the only refusal
Mark distinction	Argue	19%	Co-pending 2(d) refusal -- marks differ structurally	No co-pending substantive refusal
Class deletion	Comply	18%	One class has unsalvageable identification	All classes need to be maintained
Goods coexistence	Argue	16%	Co-pending 2(d) refusal -- amended goods are distinct from cited mark	Identification issue is standalone

Data: Over 2,200 cases analyzed. 36% argue, 64% comply -- the most compliance-heavy refusal type. Current as of April 2026.

Why Compliance Wins Here

The 64% comply rate is the highest of any major refusal type (compare: Section 2(d) is 58% argue, descriptiveness is 62% argue). The reason is structural:

• The examiner is usually right. Identification standards are well-defined in the ID Manual. There is less room for reasonable disagreement than with substantive refusals.
• Arguing costs time without gaining ground. A clean amendment using ID Manual language can resolve the issue in a single response cycle.
• Compliance does not weaken your mark. Unlike disclaimers or goods amendments in 2(d) cases, identification amendments clarify your description without reducing the scope of what you actually sell.

The Dominant Strategy: Goods Amendment

Use when: Your identification uses vague, overbroad, or non-standard language.

How to execute:

• Search the ID Manual at idm-tmng.uspto.gov for acceptable language
• Use ID Manual language verbatim where possible
• Replace industry jargon with terminology the USPTO recognizes
• Specify the nature, function, or field of use for vague terms
• Break compound descriptions into specific, identifiable items
• When modifying compound descriptions, ensure every item stands independently as a clear, complete identification

Strengthens your case:

• Amendment uses exact ID Manual language with no modifications
• Each item in the identification is independently specific enough to identify a single product or service category
• The amended identification stays within the scope of the original filing
• Supporting evidence (specimens, declarations) confirms the amended goods match actual use

Weakens your case:

• The amendment attempts to broaden beyond the original scope (prohibited under TMEP 1402.06(c))
• Amended language is still vague or industry-specific rather than ID Manual standard
• Multiple items in the identification overlap or are redundant

Example: "Computer software" is almost always rejected. "Downloadable computer software for managing financial transactions" is specific enough to pass.

Common Identification Pitfalls

The following are among the most frequently rejected identification phrases, along with the type of correction the examiner typically requires:

• "Computer software" -- Rejected as indefinite because it does not specify whether the software is downloadable, recorded, or SaaS; what it does; or what field it serves. Corrected: "Downloadable computer software for managing personal finances" or "Providing temporary use of online, non-downloadable software for project management."
• "Clothing" -- Rejected as too broad. The ID Manual requires specific items. Corrected: "Shirts; pants; jackets; hats" -- each item listed separately.
• "Consulting services" -- Rejected because it does not identify the field. Corrected: "Business management consulting services" or "Environmental consulting services in the field of waste management."
• "Online services" -- Rejected as indefinite on multiple dimensions: what type of service, what field, what the user receives. Corrected: "Providing an online marketplace for buyers and sellers of used automobiles."

In each case, the fix follows the same pattern: specify the nature of the goods or services, the format or medium, and the field of use. When in doubt, search the ID Manual for the closest pre-approved entry and adapt it to your actual business.

When Applicants Do Argue (36% of cases)

Argue strategies in identification cases are almost always directed at a co-pending Section 2(d) or other substantive refusal, not the identification issue itself. The applicant amends the identification (comply) while arguing the marks are different (argue). This dual strategy -- fix the identification while contesting the substantive refusal -- is the standard approach when identification is not the only issue in the office action.

Commercial Impression

Directed at co-pending 2(d) refusals. The applicant fixes the identification through amendment while arguing that the marks create different overall commercial impressions. The identification amendment is the comply component; the commercial impression argument targets the substantive refusal.

Strengthens your case:

• The marks differ in meaning, appearance, or connotation beyond the shared element
• Your mark includes design elements, additional words, or stylization that shifts the overall impression
• The amended goods further distinguish the trade channels

Weakens your case:

• The marks are similar in sight, sound, and meaning even after the identification amendment
• The amended goods still overlap significantly with the cited registration

Example: FIREFLY FUN HOUSE (SN 88602436) -- Amended goods while arguing distinct commercial impression. Registered in 1,764 days.

Mark Distinction

Similarly directed at co-pending refusals. Fixes the identification issue through amendment and argues distinctiveness on the merits. The argument focuses on structural, phonetic, or visual differences between the marks that make confusion unlikely.

Example: S SECUREKNOX (SN 88370540) -- Addressed identification through amendment while arguing the composite mark was distinct. Registered in 398 days.

Goods Coexistence

Relevant when amending the identification changes the overlap between the applicant's goods and the cited registration's goods. The narrower identification creates a new factual basis for the DuPont Factor 2 analysis -- if the amended goods serve different purposes, move through different trade channels, or target different consumers, the confusion argument weakens substantially.

Example: GIANTS (SN 79324750) -- Amended identification while arguing refined goods operated in different trade channels. Registered in 354 days.

Class Deletion

Use when: A multi-class application includes a class with identification that cannot be salvaged, or when the applicant does not use the mark in that class. Deleting the class preserves the rest of the application. Under 37 C.F.R. 2.32(a)(6), each class must have an independent, compliant identification.

How to evaluate: Before deleting a class, confirm that (1) the identification in that class cannot be rewritten to conform to the ID Manual, (2) you do not have specimens showing use in that class, and (3) the remaining classes still cover the core of your business. Deleting a class is permanent -- you cannot add it back to the same application later. If the class covers goods or services you intend to use in the future, consider whether a separate application would be more appropriate than deletion.

When deletion makes strategic sense: Deletion is often the fastest path to registration when one problematic class is holding up an otherwise clean application. A three-class application where two classes have compliant identifications should not be delayed by months of back-and-forth over the third class if those goods are not central to the business.

Preventing This Refusal Entirely

The most efficient identification strategy is to avoid the refusal altogether. Before filing, search the ID Manual at idm-tmng.uspto.gov for pre-approved identification language. Drafting your identification from the ID Manual eliminates the most common source of identification office actions. When the ID Manual does not contain language that precisely matches your goods or services, model your identification on the closest entry and add specificity about the nature, function, or field of use. Examiners review thousands of identifications and recognize ID Manual language immediately -- using it signals that the applicant understands the standard, which often results in smoother prosecution with fewer rounds of amendment.

Key Takeaways

1. Comply first — this is overwhelmingly a compliance refusal. With a 64% comply rate (highest of any major refusal type), the examiner is almost always right about the identification issue. Adopt ID Manual language and move forward.
2. Use the ID Manual before filing, not just after. Searching idm-tmng.uspto.gov before filing can prevent this office action entirely.
3. You can narrow but never expand. Under TMEP 1402.06(c), amendments may clarify or limit the original scope but never broaden it. If the original filing was too narrow, only a new application can fix it.
4. Argue strategies address co-pending refusals, not the identification itself. The 36% argue rate is almost entirely directed at Section 2(d) or other substantive refusals that accompany the identification issue.

Try It With Your Next Office Action

GleanMark identifies the specific identification issues in your office action and suggests ID Manual-compliant amendments -- drawing on over 2,200 resolved cases. When the refusal accompanies a Section 2(d) or other substantive issue, the system recommends a combined response.

Start your free analysis

Related

• How Trademark Applicants Actually Win Office Actions -- full statistical overview across all 14 refusal types
• Winning Strategies for Section 2(d) Office Actions -- Section 2(d) refusals often accompany identification issues
• Winning Strategies for Specimen Refusals -- specimen and identification refusals frequently co-occur

---

Data: Over 2,200 identification of goods/services office action cases analyzed. Principal Register wins only. Current as of April 2026.