GM
GleanMark
GM
GleanMark
Free Search
Pricing
Security
Book a Demo

Markus Casebook/Clearance

Clearance that hears the mark the way consumers will.

A client wants LUVLOKK for a new dating app. The literal string is clear — no application has ever been filed for it. A lawyer's real question is what it sounds like.

Have a name a client wants to use? Send it to me with the goods. Within a day, I'll send back a knockout like this one.

Send me the name

Replies come to me, Howard Katzenberg, GleanMark's founder. Public USPTO records only; please don't send anything confidential. Or write to hkatzenberg@gleanmark.com

Book a walkthrough
Ask Markus this One-page PDFOpen the real session

"Ask Markus this" opens Markus with the question ready to edit (sign-in required; Markus is on paid plans).

Ask MarkusClearance · knockout search

Run a knockout on LUVLOKK for a dating/relationship app — Classes 9 and 45. Include phonetic equivalents, not just the literal spelling.

What Markus checked

  • Ran a knockout search
Real session, Jul 16, 2026 · answered in 40 s · client is fictionalRead the answer

The answer

CRITICAL CONFLICT

Verdict: the engine flags this as CRITICAL — do not treat LUVLOKK as clear for a dating app. The phonetic net pulled 513 sound-alike hits (METAPHONE "LFLK"), and several land squarely in your market — 17 high and 20 medium conflicts overall. The ones that actually matter:

MarkSerialStatusClassesGoods/Services
LOVELOCK99359483Registered45Marriage partner introduction / dating services
LUVLO99514615Registered9, 41Downloadable audio-visual & music recordings
LUVLINK79318043Registered9Downloadable software to share content
LUVLY98007877Registered9Downloadable mobile app software

LOVELOCK is the standout obstacle. It's a live registration in Class 45 for marriage partner introduction and dating services — essentially identical services — and "LOVELOCK" vs. "LUVLOKK" is a phonetic near-twin. This is the one most likely to block you outright under §2(d).

The broader "LUV-" field is crowded (LUVLY, LUVLOOP, LUVLOOK…), which cuts both ways: "LUV" is a weak, diluted prefix — but the second element ("LOKK"/"LOCK") is what ties you dangerously close to LOVELOCK specifically.

Bottom line: LUVLOKK carries critical §2(d) risk for a dating app. I wouldn't recommend proceeding without a plan to distinguish or clear LOVELOCK. Want me to run a full 13-factor DuPont analysis of LUVLOKK vs. LOVELOCK, pull crowded-field evidence on the "LUV" prefix, or check domain availability?

Markus · live run Jul 16, 2026 Ran a knockout search (phonetic + sound-alike expansion) 40 secondsRead the unedited session

Why this needs a phonetic index

A general model can’t run a phonetic search of the register — it doesn’t have one. It would call LUVLOKK "likely available" because the literal string is unregistered. Markus expanded to 513 sound-alikes and surfaced a registered, phonetically identical mark covering the identical services — the refusal you’d otherwise discover ten months and one filing fee later.

All statuses and registration numbers independently re-verified (LOVELOCK Reg. 8202856; LUVLO Reg. 8303965; LUVLINK Reg. 6854616), July 2026. Client mark and scenario fictionalized.

More from the Casebook

All 10 sessions

06Clearance

A unique spelling doesn't survive the sound test.

Run a knockout on ZENNITH for smartwatches and fitness trackers, Classes 9 and 14. The client says the spelling is unique. Include sound-alikes, not just the literal spelling.

CriticalRead it

01TTAB

The Board's own words on fraud, quoted from nine precedential decisions.

I'm preparing an opposition that includes a fraud claim. What exactly does the Board require to prove fraud, and which precedential TTAB decisions set that standard? I especially want any cases on whether a false statement about use, or a bad specimen, was enough.

9 precedential decisionsRead it

02TTAB

Sixty-five cases since 2021. Not one argued to a decision on the merits.

My client's drinkware brand just received an extension of time to oppose from YETI Coolers. What has YETI opposed or tried to cancel over the last five years, what kinds of marks does it go after, and how did those cases end? Does it usually litigate to a decision or settle?

65 proceedings · no merits rulingRead it

The best demo is your own docket.

Ask Markus about your marks, your clients, your deadlines, your opposer. It's on every paid plan: 5 messages a month on Starter, unlimited on Professional and Max.

Send me the name Book a walkthrough

Replies come to me, Howard Katzenberg, GleanMark's founder. Public USPTO records only; please don't send anything confidential. Or write to hkatzenberg@gleanmark.com

Every Markus response shown is genuine, unscripted product output from a live run (dated on each session), condensed for space, never rewritten. The attorneys and clients in the scenarios are invented, inspired by the kinds of questions practitioners ask; no GleanMark customer's matter or wording is used. Every mark, owner, serial number, registration number, disclaimer finding and ID Manual Term ID was independently re-verified against the USPTO record, and where Markus got something wrong or couldn't confirm it, the session says so. Markus produces research and first drafts for review by a qualified practitioner. It is a research tool, not legal advice.

GM
GleanMark

Trademark intelligence for prosecution attorneys.

Stay updated

For founders: glean.name ↗, a free trademark and domain check for startup names.

Product

  • Trademark Lookup
  • Clearance Reports
  • Office Actions
  • OA Drafting
  • Office Action Research
  • TTAB Research
  • Watch Alerts
  • Deadline Management
  • Markus AI™
  • All features
  • Pricing

Resources

  • Free Trademark Search
  • Office Action Decoder (free)
  • Insights
  • TTAB Desk
  • Precedents
  • State of Trademark Filings
  • Trademark Classes

Compare

  • GleanMark vs USPTO
  • GleanMark vs Corsearch
  • GleanMark vs TM TKO
  • GleanMark + Alt Legal
  • GleanMark vs LegalZoom
  • GleanMark vs Clarivate

Company

  • About Us
  • Press Kit
  • Contact
  • FAQ
  • Help Center

© 2026 TMZap Incorporated | All rights reserved.

256-bit SSL
SecurityPrivacy PolicyTerms of ServiceCookie PolicySubprocessorsAffiliate Disclosure