Board refuses request to register UNPLEX after earlier UNPLEX TECHNOLOGIES use

Decision Desk · October 26, 2026 decision · Nonprecedential

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel that decides challenges to trademark registrations and appeals from refused applications. The Board marked this opinion nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind the Board in later cases.

The Board refused the request to register UNPLEX after finding that UNPLEX TECHNOLOGIES had been used first in the United States. UnPlex Fintech Corp’s application, its request to register the mark, covered online software for electronic funds transfers and money management. Opinion, pp. 1, 34.

Source: the Board’s complete opinion in case 91288686, with page citations below. This report describes the decision; it is not legal advice.

Unplex Technologies LLP filed an opposition, a challenge to an application before registration is granted, on December 11, 2023. It claimed common-law rights, rights gained by using a mark without registering it, in UNPLEX TECHNOLOGIES. The parties agreed that using their marks at the same time for their services was likely to confuse customers, leaving whose rights came first as the question for the Board. Opinion, pp. 2, 34.

UnPlex Fintech claimed it first used UNPLEX on January 25, 2022, pointing to an archived website and U.S. traffic data. The Board found that the archived page invited visitors to seek early access and join a waitlist, which did not show that the services were being provided. The Board said UnPlex Fintech could rely on its September 26, 2022 application filing date without further proof. It nevertheless measured Unplex Technologies’ evidence against the earlier January 25, 2022 date. Opinion, pp. 12–14.

The Board examined an August 12, 2020 engineering proposal bearing UNPLEX TECHNOLOGIES that Nilesh Rajule presented to SkyLIFE, an Ohio customer. It paired that proposal with SkyLIFE’s September 2020 feedback on engineering drawings and March 2021 payment correspondence. The Board found that Rajule had provided product design, engineering and related technical consulting services to U.S. customers under the mark by August 12, 2020. Opinion, pp. 15, 17, 28.

UnPlex Fintech argued that Rajule’s use of personal email, billing in Indian rupees and payment to an Indian bank undercut the earlier-use claim. The Board said the email domain, currency and bank did not determine whether the mark was used in the United States. On September 4, 2023, Rajule signed an assignment, a transfer of rights in the mark with the business value tied to it, to Unplex Technologies LLP. The Board found the transfer effective from June 21, 2023 and counted Rajule’s August 2020 use for Unplex Technologies LLP. Opinion, pp. 10, 17, 30, 34.

The Board did not find earlier use for financial evaluation of development costs or financial and investment consultancy services. It made no finding of earlier use for testing, analysis and evaluation services concerning certification standards or regulatory compliance. Those limits did not change the result because the Board found the earlier consulting work sufficient. The Board did not separately decide whether customers would confuse the marks. Opinion, pp. 7, 28–29.

This report describes the decision as issued; it does not follow any later appeal.

Sources

• The Board’s complete opinion; GleanMark case record.