Press release · For immediate release
GleanMark Puts Trademark Practice Under One Roof — With the USPTO Record Behind Every Answer
Search, clearance, office action drafts, watching and deadlines in one place — a “one stop shop,” as early customers call it — where research that took hours on uspto.gov takes seconds and the attorney always makes the call. The launch coincides with GleanMark’s inaugural mid-year “State of Trademark Filings” data report.
NEW YORK, July 22, 2026 — Ask a U.S. trademark attorney about their tools and the same complaints come back: a clearance search that costs $1,000, takes three days, and arrives as a 500-page PDF someone still has to read; office action responses that eat a day of legwork; a watch service that buries real conflicts in noise; a separate docketing system; and uspto.gov open in a browser tab “constantly.” The new crop of AI tools adds a different problem — invented case law an attorney has to fact-check. GleanMark today launched to put that work under one roof: trademark search, clearance analysis, office action response drafting, watching and deadline tracking in one place, with every answer drawn from the actual USPTO record and every decision left where it belongs — with the attorney. Research that took hours on uspto.gov takes seconds; a clearance analysis comes back in minutes, not days.
GleanMark’s two flagship products tackle the most expensive, highest-stakes moments in U.S. prosecution — clearing a mark before filing, and responding to an examiner’s office action — on one principle: an AI tool advising a trademark attorney should show its work. The launch is anchored to the company’s first recurring data study, the “State of Trademark Filings” report, drawn from GleanMark’s structured corpus of the public USPTO record. Among its findings: “artificial intelligence” now appears in roughly one of every 20 new U.S. trademark applications — nearly triple its share two years ago — and “AI” has become the single most-disclaimed word in this year’s new applications, even as crypto-era vocabulary fades. (Full report and methodology: gleanmark.com/reports/state-of-trademark-filings-h1-2026.)
The data study
Most published commentary on trademark filing trends relies on USPTO summary statistics or attorney surveys. GleanMark’s report instead queries the underlying record set directly, surfacing signals aggregate statistics do not: which examiner objections stop applications most often, how fast the USPTO is actually moving at every stage of prosecution, and which existing registrations block more new applications than any other. The company intends to publish it on a recurring basis and to make the methodology available to reporters, academics, and practitioners on request.
Hero product one: Clearance that shows the evidence behind the verdict
GleanMark Clearance is built for the part of the job that decides a filing: a Section 2(d) likelihood-of-confusion analysis, with every conflict sourced to the examiner record, that the attorney reviews, completes, and signs. The tool supplies the evidence; the attorney makes — and remains responsible for — the legal determination. It is deliberately U.S. and USPTO-focused, going deeper on the one register that decides a U.S. application rather than broad and shallow across many.
- The evidence behind the verdict, not a black-box score. Where most clearance tools return a confusion score, GleanMark attaches the receipts: the actual examiner-cited Section 2(d) pairs and the refusal record of each conflicting mark, read from a canonical USPTO refusals corpus rather than scraped on the fly.
- Calibrated against real Section 2(d) citations. GleanMark’s goods-and-services overlap analysis (du Pont factor 2) is tuned against the goods relationships the USPTO has actually cited for confusion, so it weights conflicts the way the Office’s own citation record does, not the way a generic similarity model guesses. It does not surface every conflict the Office might cite, which is exactly why the attorney reviews each flagged conflict and makes the final call.
- You own the deliverable. Attorneys edit the AI-drafted memo, choose which conflicts and which sections appear, and export a firm-branded report as PDF, plus Word and Excel for further customization, complete with a “How We Searched” methodology appendix.
A multi-stage knockout search engine spanning exact, phonetic, trigram, mark-embedding, and design-integrated matching feeds the analysis, with design search evaluating logo and combined marks as part of the Section 2(d) review rather than as a standalone image lookup.
Pricing is public and self-serve. A free USPTO search is the front door, no account required. Paid plans start at $99 a month, with transparent pricing published at gleanmark.com/pricing — clearance reports from $79 and office action drafts from $49, priced per matter so a firm can allocate the cost to the client file — and no sales call required to see the cost.
Hero product two: an office action response drafter that argues from the record
GleanMark’s Office Action Response Drafter takes on the part of prosecution attorneys describe as the biggest drain on their time: the research legwork and argument development behind a response. It produces the first take a firm would otherwise assign to a junior associate — an attorney-reviewed first draft of a response to a Section 2(d) or related refusal, with the legwork already done. Unlike tools that generate fluent argument and stop there, GleanMark backs its arguments with material pulled from the prosecution record — real third-party registrations, coexistence examples, and prosecution events the attorney can verify, not citations a model invented.
The drafter assembles its arguments from the record and supports each with named evidence, across five record-based arguments: crowded-field weakness (du Pont factor 6), term distinguishment (factor 1), registry coexistence (In re Thor Tech), applicant prior coexistence, and Section 2(e)(1) distinctiveness.
Just as important is when the tool declines to argue. Every argument runs behind an honesty gate that works in both directions: it withholds an argument the record cannot support, and it flags when supporting evidence is thin rather than asserting a crowded field or coexistence that does not hold up. A fabricated registration or a misstated cited-mark status does not save time; it creates fact-checking work and professional risk.
GleanMark positions the drafter as an attorney-reviewed first draft. It accelerates the work of a trademark practitioner. It does not replace one, and it makes no win-rate or guaranteed-outcome claims.
And much more
Around the two flagship products, GleanMark adds a platform that earns its keep for working trademark firms — much of it fully automated, so the firm does nothing to keep it running:
- Fast-track onboarding. A firm signs up with its correspondence email address, and GleanMark matches that against the USPTO correspondent record and maps the firm’s marks into its portfolio automatically — no manual import.
- Automated deadline tracking. Office action response, Statement of Use, and Section 8 and Section 9 renewal deadlines are generated from the USPTO record automatically as soon as a mark enters the portfolio, with reminders — a system-of-record backstop to the firm’s own docketing, not a replacement for it, so a missed entry does not become a missed deadline.
- Automated, firm-branded monthly client reports the firm sends to its own clients under its own brand.
- Semantic watch-search alerts using goods-and-services and design-image similarity for curated monitoring rather than an undifferentiated firehose.
- A Section 2(d)-integrated design search for logo and combined marks, and an office action research page over the same prosecution corpus that powers the drafter.
“Clearance and office action responses are where trademark practice gets hard and where the bills get big. Most tools hand you a confidence score and call it clearance, or hand you a generated argument and call it a draft. Neither one shows its work. We built GleanMark the other way around. The clearance analysis comes with the examiner-cited Section 2(d) conflicts behind it, and the office action draft comes with the actual third-party registrations and on-register coexistence evidence the record supports. When the record does not support an argument, the tool says so instead of inventing one. Every factual assertion is sourced to the record, so an attorney can verify it before signing their name to it.”
“I use GleanMark across clearance, office action responses, and general research. What sets it apart from the other trademark tools is the depth of the record underneath GleanMark. On clearance, it surfaces the conflicting marks thoroughly and gives me enough on each one to make my own call and sign off with confidence, instead of relying on a black-box ranking. On office action responses, it brings not just the arguments but the actual evidence behind them. And for day-to-day research, I can get a straight answer on any owner, any proceeding, or any single mark in seconds.”
About GleanMark
GleanMark is a U.S. trademark intelligence platform for attorneys and law firms, built on a canonical corpus of 14 million USPTO records, 648,000+ TTAB proceedings, 4.9 million+ trademark owners, 30,000+ active law firms, 266,000+ attorney profiles, and 240 million+ prosecution events. Every trademark, owner, law firm, correspondent and TTAB proceeding on the register has a research profile, and the same corpus powers GleanMark’s recurring monthly and quarterly data reports. Its two flagship products are a clearance engine and an evidence-grounded Office Action Response Drafter, supported by automated USPTO deadline tracking, fast-track portfolio onboarding, firm-branded client reporting, design search, and semantic watch-search monitoring. Founded in 2025 by Howard Katzenberg — an 11-year CFO, including at OnDeck, who founded the fintech company Glean before GleanMark — the company is self-funded. GleanMark is focused on the U.S. register by design and is live with paying customers. Plans start at $99 a month with a free tier; pricing is published at gleanmark.com/pricing. Learn more at gleanmark.com.