
A client of ours received a suspicious letter just one week after filing a USPTO trademark application. The sender listing an address in Bluffton–Hilton Head, South Carolina offered a “publication” of the trademark for $1,450. In reality, you do not need to pay any third party to “publish” your mark, and paying won’t speed anything up. The value of that so-called “publication” is $0—it provides no legal rights, no procedural benefit at the USPTO, and no impact on your application.
Fraudulent or misleading solicitations are a longstanding issue for trademark owners and acknowledged by the USPTO. A long list of examples can be found on the USPTO website.
If you receive a similar suspicious letter, you can discard it. Or better yet, report it to the USPTO, the FTC, and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.
Why these letters are misleading
Once a trademark application clears examination, the USPTO itself handles publication—for free—as part of the normal process. Marks approved by an examiner are published in the Trademark Official Gazette, starting a 30-day opposition window. You do not need to pay any third party to “publish” your mark, and paying won’t speed anything up.
Scammers scrape public filing data and quickly mail official-looking “invoices” to applicants. The letters often mimic government formatting, use urgent language, and describe services that sound necessary but aren’t.
In addition, if you are represented trademark counsel, the USPTO sends all communications and notices to your attorney, and the law firm pays any required fees for you.
Red flags to spot
These letters often arrive just days after you file and are designed to look like a bill you’re required to pay. The “service” is typically described as a publication, a registration in a private registry, or a directory listing. Payment is directed to a private company rather than the USPTO, and the sender does not use an @uspto.gov email address. The fine print may even admit the sender is not affiliated with the USPTO. For examples of common trademark scams and what genuine USPTO communications look like, see the USPTO’s guidance.
What to do if you receive one
- Don’t pay. Toss it or forward it to your attorney for verification.
- Report it.
- USPTO: send details to TMScams@uspto.gov and review their scam resources.
- FTC: file a report at www. ReportFraud.ftc.gov
- U.S. Postal Inspection Service: report mail fraud online https://www.uspis.gov/report .
Already paid?
Save the letter, proof of payment, and envelopes. Contact your bank or card issuer to dispute the charge, and report the incident to the USPTO and FTC. The USPTO outlines additional steps if you think you’ve been scammed.
How to protect yourself going forward
Real USPTO publication happens automatically and at no charge, and you can verify your application’s status in TSDR or with your trademark counsel and confirm publication in the Trademark Official Gazette. If you do not have trademark counsel, pay official fees only through USPTO.gov rather than mailing checks to private companies. Whenever possible, route communications through your trademark counsel so suspicious letters are screened before they reach your accounting team. And if you see a pattern of these mailers, report it—your reports help agencies identify and shut down mass-mail schemes.
If you a client and received a PSO “publication” letter—or anything similar—feel free to send us a copy. We’ll confirm whether it’s legitimate and make sure your application stays on track.
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- An Overview of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025
- USPTO Proposes New Limits on Inter Partes Review Challenges Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.108
- Choosing Trade Secrets Over Patents? What Recent Cases Mean for Your IP Strategy
- Don’t Let AI Negotiate Your IP Future
- When "Publication" Letters Might be a Trademark Scam
- Working within the USPTO Track 1 Limits
- From Radio Stunt to Licensing Asset: What Wing Bowl Teaches Us About Trademark Value
- Intellectual Property in Popular Culture: When IP Goes “Pop”
- “Settled Expectations” as the New Gatekeeper for PTAB Discretionary Denials--Why Late-Stage IPRs Are Getting Harder to File
- When an IDS Comes Back to Haunt You: Lessons from iRhythm v. Welch Allyn
Archives
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017