Trademark Due Diligence for Deals and Investments
Revisamos carteras de marcas para compradores, inversionistas y prestamistas, en inglés y en español.
Before you buy a brand, invest in it, lend against it, or license it, confirm that the trademark rights are real, owned by the right company, and free of surprises. We review the USPTO and foreign records, the contracts, and the accounts behind the brand, and give you a written report of what to fix, what to price, and what to walk away from.
A brand is only worth what the records can prove
In most deals that involve a consumer brand, a fintech product, or a medical device line, the trademarks carry much of the value. Yet what changes hands is not a logo. It is a set of legal rights: registrations that must be kept alive, a chain of title that must be unbroken, licenses that may have given rights away, and liens that may already secure someone else's loan.
Trademark due diligence tests those rights before you pay for them, lend against them, or build your business on a license to use them. We read the official records, the contracts, and the digital accounts, and we tell you what is clean, what is fixable before closing, and what should change the price or the structure.
Deal structure matters. In a stock or membership-interest purchase, the target company keeps owning its marks, so the work focuses on whether the company really owns them and what it has promised to others. In an asset purchase, every mark, application, domain, and account has to be transferred, and the transfer documents must be drafted so the USPTO and foreign offices will record them.
Who we do this for
- Buyers of companies or brand assets, including private equity and strategic acquirers
- Investors in venture and growth rounds who want to know the brand belongs to the company
- Lenders taking trademarks as collateral, and borrowers preparing for a lender's review
- Licensees and franchisees about to invest in someone else's brand
- Sellers who want to find and fix problems before a buyer does
- Latin American buyers of U.S. brands, and U.S. buyers of Latin American brands
Who owns the marks, according to the USPTO record
The first question in every review is simple: does the seller, borrower, or licensor actually own what it says it owns? The answer is in the assignment records, and it is often not what the business assumes.
The USPTO's Assignment Recordation Branch records assignments, mergers, name changes, security agreements, and other documents that affect title. Since February 5, 2024, filings go through the USPTO's Assignment Center, which replaced the older ETAS and EPAS systems. Recorded documents can be searched by registration number, owner, or assignee.
Recording is a ministerial act. The USPTO does not check whether a recorded assignment is valid or what it actually transferred. A clean-looking record can hide a defective document, and a gap in the record can hide a perfectly good one. We read the underlying instruments, not just the abstract of title.
Three statutory rules drive this part of the review:
- Writing. Assignments must be by a written, executed instrument. A recorded assignment is prima facie evidence of execution. 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(3)
- Goodwill. A mark is assignable only with the goodwill of the business in which it is used. A bare transfer of the mark alone, an "assignment in gross," can be attacked as invalid. § 1060(a)(1)
- Recording within 3 months. An unrecorded assignment is void against a later purchaser for value without notice, unless it is recorded within 3 months after its date or before the later purchase. § 1060(a)(4)
The intent-to-use trap
An application filed on an intent-to-use basis cannot be assigned before the owner files an allegation of use, unless it goes to a successor to the applicant's business, or the part of it to which the mark pertains, and that business is ongoing and existing. 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(1)
Under USPTO practice, a premature assignment to anyone else voids the application, and a registration that issues from it is subject to cancellation. Reorganizations that move pending applications into a new holding company, and loan documents drafted as present assignments, are common sources of this problem.
In Clorox Co. v. Chemical Bank (TTAB 1996), a collateral "assignment" of an intent-to-use application to a lender was treated as an improper assignment.
Title defects we look for
Wrong owner on the registration
The founder, a sister company, a dissolved predecessor, or a foreign parent is listed as owner, not the company being sold or financed.
Gaps in the chain
A merger, conversion, or name change was never recorded, so the record owner does not match the legal entity that exists today.
Assignments without goodwill
Marks moved to an IP holding company without the business that uses them, or with no license back to the operating company.
Partial or inconsistent transfers
Some registrations in a family were assigned and others were not, or the word mark and the logo now belong to different entities.
Deadlines, lapsed registrations, and nonuse exposure
A registration that looks live in a portfolio spreadsheet may be in its grace period, already cancelled, or open to attack for nonuse. We check every registration against the USPTO's maintenance windows and against the target's actual use.
| Filing or proceeding | When | Grace or response period | What it means for a deal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 8 declaration of use | Between the 5th and 6th years after registration | 6 months, with a surcharge | If it is not filed by the end of the grace period, the registration is cancelled. A new application is usually the only fix. |
| Combined Sections 8 and 9 (renewal) | Between the 9th and 10th years, then every 10 years | 6 months, with a surcharge | Watch for registrations due between signing and closing. Someone must be responsible for filing. |
| Section 71 declaration (U.S. registrations from a Madrid designation) | Between the 5th and 6th years and the 9th and 10th years after U.S. registration, then every 10 years | 6 months, with a fee | Filed with the USPTO. The international registration itself is renewed with WIPO, and the U.S. extension must be renewed with it. |
| Post-registration audit | Random or directed audits of Section 8 and 71 filings | Response due within the later of 6 months or the end of the filing window | The owner must prove use for additional goods or services. Deleting items costs $250 per class, and an unanswered audit cancels the entire registration. |
| Expungement (never used) | Requested between 3 and 10 years after registration | Owner must answer with proof of use | Any third party, including a competitor, can petition. Goods or services never used can be removed. |
| Reexamination (not in use on the relevant date) | Requested within 5 years after registration | Owner must answer with proof of use | Use-based registrations claiming goods or services that were not in use when claimed are exposed. |
Expungement and reexamination were created by the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020; petitions have been available since December 27, 2021. The USPTO Director can also start either proceeding.
Use matters as much as dates. Registrations often list far more goods or services than the business sells. Those overbroad listings are what expungement and reexamination petitions target, and what an audit will test the next time a declaration is filed. When the target relies on a broad registration to stop competitors, we check whether the goods that matter are actually in use and supported by evidence.
We also look for marks the business uses but never registered, applications abandoned for missing deadlines, and registrations on the Supplemental Register that give narrower rights than the seller's schedule suggests.
Security interests: the UCC filing and the USPTO record
Trademarks are often pledged as collateral. Where a lien must be filed, and what each filing does, is a frequent source of confusion for buyers and lenders alike.
The Lanham Act's recording provision speaks of assignments. It does not set up a federal system for perfecting security interests in trademarks. Courts have therefore held that a lender perfects a security interest in a trademark by filing a UCC financing statement under state law, generally in the debtor's state of organization, and that recording the security agreement at the USPTO alone does not perfect it.
The main decisions are In re Together Development Corp., 227 B.R. 439 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998), where a lender that recorded only at the USPTO lost its priority in bankruptcy, and Trimarchi v. Together Development Corp., 255 B.R. 606 (D. Mass. 2000), which held that the Lanham Act does not displace the UCC filing requirement. These are trial-level rulings rather than Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent, but they are treated as the working rule in practice.
That does not make the USPTO record irrelevant. The two filings do different jobs:
- UCC-1 financing statement: perfects the lien against other creditors and a bankruptcy trustee.
- USPTO recordation: gives public notice to buyers and later lenders who search the trademark record, and flags old liens for anyone doing diligence.
Careful lenders do both, and careful buyers search both. A payoff at closing should include a UCC-3 termination and a release recorded at the USPTO, or the old lien will still appear on the trademark record years later.
What we check for lenders and buyers
- UCC searches in the debtor's state of organization, and in prior states if the debtor moved or converted
- Security agreements, releases, and partial releases recorded at the USPTO
- Whether loan documents grant a security interest or purport to make a present assignment
- Intent-to-use applications excluded from any collateral assignment until use is alleged
- Foreclosure provisions that transfer goodwill and the assets that support it
- Liens on foreign registrations recorded with local offices
Disputes, licenses, and the rights that live outside the USPTO
The register shows what the owner claims. Disputes, contracts, and online accounts show what the owner can actually do with the brand.
Pending oppositions, cancellations, and lawsuits
We search TTABVUE for Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings against or by the target, PACER for federal cases, and state dockets where relevant. We also ask for demand letters, cease-and-desist letters, coexistence agreements, and settlement terms, which rarely appear in any public record.
TTABVUE · PACERQuality control and naked licensing
An owner that licenses its mark without controlling the quality of the licensee's goods or services risks losing its rights. In Barcamerica International USA Trust v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002), naked licensing was held to be abandonment. We read each license for real quality-control terms and ask whether they are enforced.
Abandonment riskExclusivity, change of control, and estoppel
Exclusive grants, territories, most-favored terms, and anti-assignment or change-of-control clauses can limit a buyer's plans. Licensees are generally barred from challenging the licensor's mark during the license, although courts differ on what a licensee may argue about events outside the license.
Contract reviewDomain names
Who is the registrant of record, at which registrar, and under whose login? Domains held in an employee's or agency's personal account are a common gap, and a lapsed renewal can lose the brand's main website.
Registrar recordsSocial handles and Amazon Brand Registry
Social media accounts are governed by platform terms and are often tied to a person rather than the company. Amazon Brand Registry enrollment is tied to a registered or pending trademark and to the account that enrolled it. We confirm who controls each account and how it moves at closing. See Amazon Brand Registry.
Account controlFlorida registrations and fictitious names
Florida trademark registrations last 5 years and are renewed in 5-year terms. Assignments are recorded with the Department of State, with a 3-month recording rule like the federal one. A fictitious name (DBA) registration is public notice only and gives no trademark rights. See Florida State Trademarks and Florida Fictitious Names.
Fla. Stat. §§ 495.071, 495.081Who owns the logo artwork
Trademark rights and copyright in a logo are separate. The company can own the mark through use and registration while a freelance designer or agency still owns the copyright in the artwork.
A work is "made for hire" only if an employee created it within the scope of employment, or if it was specially commissioned, falls into one of nine statutory categories, and is covered by a signed writing that calls it a work made for hire. A stand-alone logo generally does not fit those categories, so a logo bought from a freelancer usually needs a written, signed assignment of copyright. 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 204(a)
Without one, the designer may still own the artwork. Even with one, an individual author's transfer of a work that is not made for hire may later be subject to termination rights under 17 U.S.C. § 203. We look for the agreements, and recommend confirmatory assignments before closing where they are missing.
Fonts, stock art, and open-source names
- Logos built from licensed fonts, stock icons, or template marketplaces may carry license limits on trademark use
- AI-generated design elements raise separate questions about copyright protection for the artwork
- Software brands tied to an open-source project may depend on a name owned by a foundation or another contributor
- Packaging, product photography, and website content raise the same ownership questions as the logo
Foreign registrations, Madrid dependency, and Latin American deals
A brand sold as "global" is usually a patchwork of national filings, Madrid designations, and local registrations held by distributors. Cross-border deals between Latin American and U.S. companies are a natural fit for our practice.
Madrid: the five-year dependency
An international registration under the Madrid Protocol depends on its home-country basic application or registration for 5 years from the international registration date. If the basic mark is refused, cancelled, or narrowed in that period, the international registration is cancelled to the same extent in every designated country, a risk often called "central attack."
The holder can transform the cancelled designations into national applications that keep the original date, but only within 3 months after the cancellation is recorded in the International Register. When a target's foreign coverage rests on a basic mark that is under opposition or attack, the whole portfolio is at risk.
Ownership changes to an international registration are recorded with WIPO's International Bureau, which notifies the designated offices, including the USPTO. A transfer recorded only in the United States does not update the international record.
Latin America: first to file
Latin American trademark systems are generally first-to-file: rights come from registration, not from use. A brand that has sold in a country for years without registering there may find a distributor, former partner, or squatter already owns the registration. We check who holds each local registration, whether use requirements are met, and whether a local distributor registered the mark in its own name.
Madrid members in Latin America and the Caribbean
As of WIPO's July 8, 2026 member list, the Madrid Protocol is in force for:
- Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Grenada, Jamaica, Mexico, and Trinidad and Tobago
Not members, so protection requires national filings: Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Recording assignments, licenses, and liens is governed by each country's law. We verify local rules through trusted counsel in each market.
For deals led by a foreign buyer or its counsel, see Foreign Trademark Counsel and Latin American Brands. For filing strategy after closing, see Madrid Protocol Overview.
A trademark diligence checklist, grouped by risk
We scale the review to the deal. A seed investment may need the first group only. An acquisition or a loan secured by the brand needs all of it.
Title and registrations
- Schedule of U.S., Florida, and foreign registrations and applications, checked against official records
- Owner of record for each mark matches the correct legal entity
- Every assignment, merger, and name change in the chain, with the underlying documents
- Intent-to-use applications never assigned before use was alleged
- Unregistered marks, slogans, trade dress, and product names in actual use
Maintenance and validity
- Section 8, 9, and 71 deadlines, including any falling between signing and closing
- Registrations in a grace period, cancelled, or abandoned
- Goods and services actually in use, compared with what each registration claims
- Pending audits, expungement, or reexamination proceedings
- Specimens on file that would hold up if challenged
Encumbrances and disputes
- UCC searches and USPTO-recorded security agreements and releases
- TTAB oppositions and cancellations, by or against the target
- Federal and state lawsuits, demand letters, and threatened claims
- Coexistence, consent, and settlement agreements that limit use
- Customs recordations and marketplace enforcement history
Licenses and contracts
- Inbound and outbound licenses, franchise agreements, and distribution agreements
- Quality-control terms, and evidence they are enforced
- Exclusivity, territory, change-of-control, and anti-assignment clauses
- Royalty terms and audit rights that pass to a buyer
- Copyright assignments for logos, packaging, and brand content
Digital assets
- Domain names: registrant, registrar, account owner, and renewal dates
- Social media handles and the accounts that control them
- Amazon Brand Registry and other marketplace brand programs
- App store listings and developer accounts that use the brand
Foreign and Florida
- Madrid international registrations within their 5-year dependency period
- Local registrations held by distributors, agents, or former partners
- Florida registrations, renewals, and recorded assignments
- Florida fictitious names that should move with the business
Twelve findings that should change the deal
Not every problem is a deal problem. We sort findings by how hard they are to fix and whether they can be fixed before closing.
| Finding | Severity | Why it matters | Typical fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intent-to-use application assigned before use to a non-successor | High | The application is void, and a resulting registration can be cancelled | New application; reprice for the lost priority |
| Core registration cancelled for a missed Section 8 or renewal | High | No registration, so only common-law rights remain until a new one issues | New application; check for intervening third-party filings |
| Naked license with no quality control | High | Possible abandonment of the mark | Amend the license; document control going forward |
| Local Latin American registration owned by a distributor | High | In a first-to-file country, the distributor may own the brand there | Negotiated assignment or local cancellation action |
| Madrid basic mark under attack within the 5-year period | High | Loss would cancel the international registration everywhere | Defend the basic mark; plan transformation filings |
| Pending opposition, cancellation, or infringement suit | High | The mark, or the right to use it, may be lost | Special indemnity, escrow, or settlement before closing |
| Section 8 or renewal due before closing | Time-sensitive | A missed window can cancel the registration | Covenant that the seller files; confirm filing at closing |
| Registration owned by a founder or affiliate | Fix before closing | The company does not own its own brand | Assignment with goodwill, recorded as a closing condition |
| Unrecorded mergers or name changes | Fix before closing | Record owner does not match the real owner | Record the chain; nunc pro tunc documents where needed |
| Unreleased security interest | Fix before closing | An old lender may still have a claim, or appear to | Payoff letter, UCC-3 termination, USPTO release |
| Logo created by a freelancer with no written assignment | Moderate | The designer may still own the copyright in the artwork | Confirmatory copyright assignment |
| Domain or handles in a personal or agency account | Moderate | Control depends on a person, not the company | Transfer to company accounts as a closing deliverable |
How we run a trademark diligence review
The scope follows the deal. We agree on which marks, countries, and issues are material before we start, so the review is sized to the transaction and the closing date.
- KickoffScope and materialityDeal type, key brands, key markets, and the closing timeline.
- RecordsOfficial searchesUSPTO status and assignments, TTABVUE, PACER, Florida records, and UCC searches.
- Data roomContracts and accountsLicenses, coexistence agreements, design agreements, domains, and marketplace accounts.
- AbroadForeign checkMadrid records and local registrations, verified through counsel in each country.
- ReportFindings and fixesA written report with a red-flag summary, severity, and recommended fixes.
- ClosingDocuments and recordingsReps and schedules, assignments, releases, and post-closing recordations.
The deliverable is a written report for the deal team, not a data dump. It opens with the findings that affect price, structure, or closing conditions, then gives the mark-by-mark detail that lawyers and lenders need for schedules and opinions. Where the buyer's counsel or a lender's counsel is leading the deal, we work as trademark counsel alongside them.
Melissa Dangond Crews handles international registration and Spanish-language matters, including the Latin American side of cross-border deals. Robert H. Thornburg and Susan J. Latham assess pending disputes and litigation exposure. James R. Leahy reviews e-commerce, technology, and marketplace issues. Our attorneys work in English and Spanish; documents in Portuguese, French, German, and Italian are handled through qualified translators.
Industry focus
- FinTech brands: product names, app accounts, and licensed bank partnerships
- Medical technology brands: device names, distributor registrations abroad, and licenses
- Consumer products: packaging, trade dress, marketplace accounts, and Customs recordations
Representations, warranties, and post-closing fixes
Diligence findings feed directly into the purchase agreement, the loan documents, or the license. What cannot be fixed before closing should be allocated by contract.
Five trademark representations worth negotiating
- Ownership and chain of titleThe seller owns each scheduled mark, free of liens other than those disclosed, and the record owner is correct.
- Validity and maintenanceRegistrations are subsisting, all maintenance filings are current, and no audit, expungement, or reexamination is pending.
- No claimsNo pending or threatened oppositions, cancellations, lawsuits, or demands, other than those scheduled.
- LicensesAll inbound and outbound licenses and coexistence agreements are scheduled, with no defaults.
- SufficiencyThe assets transferred include every mark, domain, account, and copyright needed to run the brand.
Fixing title after the fact
Nunc pro tunc assignments. When a transfer happened earlier but was never documented, a nunc pro tunc ("now for then") assignment memorializes it with its original effective date. The USPTO accepts these for recording. The effective date matters, because it must fit the rest of the chain and the intent-to-use rules.
Corrective recordations. Errors in a recorded cover sheet or document, such as a wrong registration number or a misnamed party, can be corrected by recording a corrective filing rather than starting over.
Short-form assignments. We prepare short-form trademark assignments for recording, so the full purchase agreement stays confidential.
Post-closing checklist. Record assignments within 3 months to protect against later purchasers; update Madrid records with WIPO; record with the Florida Department of State and foreign offices; terminate old UCC filings and record releases; transfer domains, handles, and Brand Registry roles; and calendar every maintenance deadline under the new owner's name.
Where a defect cannot be cured before closing, the usual tools are a closing condition, a specific indemnity, an escrow or holdback, or a price adjustment.
Five most common mistakes in trademark due diligence
Most trademark surprises after closing come from records nobody read, not from law nobody knew.
Relying on the seller's schedule
Portfolio spreadsheets are often out of date. They list cancelled registrations as live, miss marks owned by affiliates, and leave out unregistered brands the business depends on.
Official recordsCheck every mark against USPTO, Florida, and foreign records, not just the schedule.
Reading the abstract, not the documents
The USPTO records documents without checking them. An assignment without goodwill, or a premature transfer of an intent-to-use application, can look fine on the assignment abstract.
15 U.S.C. § 1060Read the recorded instruments themselves.
Searching only the USPTO for liens
Security interests in trademarks are perfected by UCC filing. A clean USPTO record does not mean there is no lien.
UCC Article 9Run UCC searches in every state where the owner has been organized.
Forgetting the accounts
The domain, the social handles, and the Brand Registry account often sit in a founder's or agency's personal login, outside any assignment.
Digital assetsMake account transfers a closing deliverable, with credentials and admin roles confirmed.
Assuming foreign rights follow U.S. rights
In first-to-file countries, a distributor or squatter can own the brand locally, and a Madrid portfolio can fall with its basic mark.
Madrid · first to fileVerify ownership in each market that matters to the deal before signing.
Frequently asked questions
How long does trademark due diligence take?
It depends on the number of marks and countries, the state of the data room, and how quickly foreign counsel can confirm local records. We agree on scope and timing at the start so the review fits the signing and closing dates.
Is recording an assignment at the USPTO required for it to be valid?
No. An assignment is valid between the parties if it is in writing and carries goodwill. Recording matters for priority: an unrecorded assignment is void against a later purchaser for value without notice unless it is recorded within 3 months after its date or before the later purchase, under 15 U.S.C. § 1060(a)(4). Recording is also needed to get a new registration certificate in the buyer's name.
Does recording a security agreement at the USPTO perfect a lender's lien?
Not on its own, according to the main court decisions. Perfection is by UCC financing statement under state law. Lenders usually record at the USPTO as well, to give notice to buyers and later lenders who search the trademark record.
Can a pending intent-to-use application be sold?
Only to a successor to the applicant's business, or the part of it to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing, until an allegation of use is filed. Any other assignment before that point voids the application under USPTO practice.
What happens if a registration missed its Section 8 or renewal deadline?
There is a 6-month grace period with a surcharge. After that the registration is cancelled, and the owner generally has to file a new application. Meanwhile, the owner keeps whatever common-law rights its use supports.
Do U.S. registrations protect the brand in Latin America?
No. Rights are territorial. Most Latin American systems are first-to-file, so registration in each country matters. Mexico, Colombia, Brazil, and Chile are Madrid members; Argentina, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela are not, and require national filings. See Latin American Brands.
Who owns the logo if a freelancer designed it?
Often the freelancer, as far as the copyright in the artwork is concerned, unless there is a signed written assignment. A stand-alone logo generally does not qualify as a commissioned work made for hire. The company may still own the trademark rights through use.
Do you work with the buyer's deal counsel or with foreign counsel?
Yes. We often act as trademark counsel alongside corporate or finance counsel, and we coordinate with trusted local counsel in each foreign market. See Foreign Trademark Counsel.
Discuss your transaction
Send the term sheet or letter of intent, a list of the marks and countries involved, and the target signing or closing date. A portfolio export or data-room index is enough to start.
- Chain-of-title and maintenance review against official records
- Lien, dispute, and license review with a red-flag report
- Foreign and Latin American checks through local counsel
- Assignments, releases, and recordations for closing
Prefer to talk first? Call or email, or message us on WhatsApp. Atendemos en español.
- 15 U.S.C. § 1060, Assignment (Cornell LII)
- USPTO, Resources available to support transition to Assignment Center
- TMEP Chapter 500, Change of Ownership (reproduction)
- USPTO, Maintaining your registration
- USPTO, Post Registration Audit Program
- USPTO, Trademark Modernization Act of 2020
- USPTO, Inbound Madrid Protocol post-registration
- WIPO, Madrid Protocol contracting parties (status July 8, 2026)
- WIPO webinar, Madrid System: dependency and transformation
- Herrick, How to Enforce U.S. Security Interests in Trademarks (INTA Bulletin)
- In re Together Development Corp., 227 B.R. 439 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998) (CALI summary)
- Barcamerica Int'l USA Trust v. Tyfield Importers, Inc., 289 F.3d 589 (9th Cir. 2002)
- U.S. Copyright Office, Circular 30: Works Made for Hire
- Florida Statutes, Chapter 495 (Registration and Protection of Trademarks)
- Florida Division of Corporations, Fictitious Names FAQ
- World Trademark Review, Trademark protection and enforcement in Latin America
General information, not legal advice for your situation. Statutes, rules, and fees as of October 2026. Last reviewed October 28, 2026.