Feature highlight: Markus AI paralegal

Hi! This is Howard Katzenberg, GleanMark's founder. Our customers think of Markus as Claude or ChatGPT with direct access to USPTO data: an AI paralegal for trademark research and prosecution. Here's one clearance session, from potential conflicts to prosecution history, web research, filing language, and an email to the client.

Let's take an invented candle brand: EMBER & SLATE. The client plans to sell scented soy candles. I give Markus the name and goods, and ask which conflicts matter most.

Markus runs a knockout search and identifies the key risks. First is EMBER alone, registered for candles. It also flags an earlier application that could delay registration and identifies other owners with EMBER marks for further crowded-field research. It suggests reversing the words, too, an alternative we'll investigate later.

That raises a question customers often ask: how did different owners register marks containing EMBER for candles? Did the examiner ever refuse one over another?

Markus reviews the prosecution records. EMBER registered without an office action, although other EMBER candle marks were already registered. In the records Markus searched, no EMBER candle mark was refused over another, which suggests EMBER candle marks can coexist. But in one file, CROWN & EMBER was refused over CROWN + CRYSTAL, with the examiner emphasizing their shared first term. Our proposed name starts with EMBER, so that cuts the other way. Markus also explains the limits of the records it searched.

Next, I ask whether anyone is already using either EMBER & SLATE or SLATE & EMBER without a federal registration.

This search didn't find a candle seller using EMBER & SLATE. But it found an online store using the reversed name for wood goods, so the alternative Markus suggested needs a closer look, too. Markus also explains what the web search may have missed.

Once the client picks a name, the next question is one customers often ask: what goods and services wording to use. The client also plans wax melts and reed diffusers, so I ask which pre-approved ID Manual entries fit, and in which classes.

Markus returns the entries and their term numbers. Wax melts belong in Class 4 with the candles. Air fragrance reed diffusers belong in Class 3. Then Markus expands the conflict search to cover the additional goods, and finds that the EMBER registration covers reed diffusers, too.

Last, I ask for a short, plain-English email to the client.

Markus drafts it: what we found, the client's options, a recommendation left in brackets for the attorney to confirm, and a placeholder for your fees. Copy it, download it in Word, or ask for a shorter version.

In one conversation, you've identified key conflicts, examined prosecution history, checked for unregistered uses, found filing language, and drafted the client email. Adding a product showed the main conflict reaches reed diffusers, too. Each trademark result links to its record for review.

Bring your next clearance question to Markus. Start a free trial or book a demo at gleanmark.com.