The USPTO recently announced that, on August 6, 2025, it terminated over *52,000* pending applications and issued registrations handled by a foreign filing firm, Shenzhen Seller Growth Network Tech, and its affiliates (collectively “Seller Growth” or “Respondents“) following the issuance of several Orders to Show Cause and a Final Order for Sanctions addressing years’ worth of consistently fraudulent conduct connected with applying for and obtaining U.S. trademark registrations without complying with US laws or USPTO regulations.  See “USPTO has terminated more than 52,000 fraudulently filed trademark applications and registrations,” News Brief (Aug. 8, 2025) (“News Brief“); Order Reconsidering Registration Decisions (issued July 28, 2025) (“Reconsideration Order“); and Final Order for Sanctions (issued Aug. 6, 2025) (“Final Order“); see generally USPTO’s Administrative Proceedings Page (listing all prior sanctions orders, show cause orders and other administrative orders).

In summary, these orders described the following fraudulent conduct:

1. Submitting documents on behalf of others without the proper authority or qualifications, sometimes supported by documents signed by persons other than the named signatory and/or bearing forged signatures of attorneys (with or without their knowledge);
   • After the imposition of the USPTO’s Mandatory U.S. Counsel Rule in 2019, foreign filers could no longer represent themselves or be represented by non-US agents or by non-US-attorneys in trademark proceedings before the USPTO.  See “Requirement of U.S. Licensed Attorney for Foreign Trademark Applicants and Registrants,” 84 Fed. Reg. 31498 (July 2, 2019) (effective Aug. 3, 2019).
   • Since then, only U.S.-licensed attorneys are permitted to represent others in trademark matters before the USPTO.  See Final Order at 4; 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.17(a), 11.1, 11.14(a); 5 U.S.C. § 500(b).
   • The USPTO’s Rules on signatures are long-standing: only the named signatory may apply their own signature and cannot delegate their signatory authority to any other person.  Final Order at 5; see also “Reorganization of Correspondence and Other General Provisions,” 68 Fed. Reg. 48286 at 48290 (Aug. 13, 2003) (“Each piece of correspondence that requires a person’s signature, must: (i) Be an original, that is, have an original signature personally signed in permanent ink by that person . . . “) (emphasis added); Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP“) § 611.01(b) (2012 ed.) (“All correspondence that requires a signature must bear either a handwritten signature personally signed in permanent ink by the person named as the signatory, or an “electronic signature” that meets the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §2.193(c), personally entered by the signatory.”) (emphasis added).
2. Soliciting the cooperation of U.S.-licensed attorneys to participate in their scheme (in some cases through unsolicited emails offering to pay a “per application” referral fee for each application filed);
   • Seller Growth also misused the bar admission credentials of these attorneys to submit falsified documentation in support of pending applications or of registrations due for maintenance.
   • Many of the cooperating attorneys have been sanctioned for their participation in this scheme, including by being suspended from practice before the USPTO for various periods.  See “Foreign filing firms improperly soliciting U.S.-licensed attorneys,” USPTO (last updated Feb. 17, 2023) (brief summary and links to final suspension orders appear under “Consequences of these Scams”).
3. Submitting fake “specimens of use” (which I’ve previously discussed on this blog);
   • The U.S. trademark system is based on actual use in U.S. commerce, or at least in commerce that the U.S. can regulate.  Initial applications can be based on a bona fide intent to use such marks – but if applicants seek registration under Section 1(a) or Section 1(b), eventually they will have prove use in commerce before registration will issue.
     • There are exceptions – such as applications filed under Section 44 or Section 66 – but those applications were not at issue in these proceedings and are therefore not covered in this post.
   • Seller Growth was alleged to have submitted fake specimens, created solely to trick the USPTO into believing that the “use in commerce” requirement had been met – and thus, defrauding the USPTO into granting registration where it was not warranted.  See Exhibit X to the USPTO’s 2023 Supplemental Show Cause Order against Seller Growth (“2023 Order“) (starting at page 1205 of the opinion) (providing 114 pages of serial numbers in which fake specimens were submitted at some point in the prosecution of each application); 2023 Order at 17 (describing the serial numbers listed in Exhibit X as representing “2,500 different trademark applications where Respondents provided digitally altered or mocked-up specimens and were accordingly refused registration for that reason.”).
   • For a visual image of how the fake website specimens would look, see, for example, the original specimen submitted on January 7, 2022 with the application for registration of the mark BYTAYA, Ser. No. 97/208,816 – Document 24 in the file history, at page 10.  The USPTO’s Office Action refusing this specimen explains the problem succinctly:  “In this case, the images of the mark physically on the goods appear to be digitally altered.  The mark appears to float over the goods and is in a different resolution than the rest of the image.  Additionally, the combined webpages are not sufficient to show a point of sale display for the goods as the information was not contained within a single page and the webpage could not be accessed.  Therefore, the specimen does not show actual use of the mark in commerce.”  Office Action at 1 (Mar. 31, 2022)
4. Misusing USPTO.gov accounts to submit these fraudulent filings.
   • There are strict Terms of Use governing use of USPTO websites (which applies to the MyUSPTO.gov pages) and there’s a specific Account Agreement governing USPTO Trademark Verified USPTO.gov Accounts.  These accounts are personally assigned, following proof of an individual’s actual identity (tied to government-issued ID), contains features assigned based on the user’s “role” and cannot be transferred to anyone else.
   • Seller Growth apparently “shared” several of these personally-assigned accounts and multiple individuals in different locations and on different computer networks simultaneously signed trademark filings using these accounts, such that these signatures constitute evidence that the named signatories could not possibly have applied their own signatures to each simultaneously-signed filing.  See Final Order at 11 (“USPTO evidence demonstrates that in a one-month period, a single USPTO.gov account was responsible for nearly one thousand Trademark Electronic Application System (“TEAS”) forms submitted so close in time including several filed at the exact same time from different computer networks, with the direct signature of a single attorney, that is would be virtually impossible for the signatures to have been properly entered by the named signatory.”); id. at 15 (“By way of example, on February 9, 2022, one of the USPTO.gov accounts associated with Respondents was responsible for filing 256 separate CAR forms, most submitted within seconds or minutes of each other, with each submission allegedly directly signed by the owner or principal and originating from the same computer networks.”).

More Details

This post explores some of the more specific details in the Seller Growth proceedings – specifically, fake specimens and irregularities with the specific marks covered by the sanctions orders.  (Future posts may discuss other issues raised in these orders, such as signature requirements and/or domicile requirements, but for now, consider these topics to be “reserved.”)

For years, we trademark attorneys have observed pervasive fraudulent conduct in USPTO filings, and frequently brainstorm and debate (in bar association meetings or otherwise) whether the resulting proposed or final changes to USPTO prosecution procedures are effective to address and/or discourage such obviously false filings.  Indeed, the targets of these rule changes (i.e., the “fraud-sters” or “bad actors”) constantly adapt to each round of rule changes the USPTO imposes, sometimes increasing (at least momentarily) their filings just before the rule change would take effect.  As a result, the USPTO has to continually react in an effort to protect the accuracy of the Register, causing the rest of us to feel like we’re just along for the ride and it’s everything we can do to keep up with the constant rule changes so that we can represent our clients effectively.

Fake Specimens

One result of these increases in fraudulent filings by bad actors has been the USPTO’s change in what kinds of evidence of use would be acceptable in support of statements of use (for applications) or declarations of continued use (to maintain registrations).

Prior to 2019, it was not uncommon for the marketing personnel at companies to provide their trademark counsel with pristine photos of products bearing the mark (showing where the mark is placed on the item).  By “pristine,” I mean clean photos that would also be used on the company’s website to show customers what the product looks like, using crisp images of the product photographed on white backgrounds so that only the product at issue appears, with limited shadows and no distracting background images.  But under the current Rules, these kinds of photos can very easily look like they were digitally created, rather than demonstrate how the goods appear in real life.  See TMEP § 904.04(a) (listing non-exhaustive examples of prohibited digital manipulations).

Today, in order to create valid “specimens” of use of the trademark in commerce in connection with goods, these products should be photographed as they appear “in real life” – for instance, including images in the background of the product in ways that should make marketing professionals shudder.  (Imagine someone holding the product in their hands, or showing the product sitting on the table where other items on the same table are still visible in the image.)  It goes without saying that the mark should not be digitally applied to any photo in post-production editing, but instead, simply show the goods exactly the way the consumer would see them.  Examiners must be able to see that the product is real and that the mark was not “digitally applied” to a digital photo of the goods.  (For more on “digitally-altered specimens” see TMEP § 904.04(a) (cited above), https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/maintain/responding-office-actions (describing specimen refusals, common problems with specimens and how to overcome the refusals) and https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/laws/2020-modernization-act (under Evidence/Digitally altered specimens).)

Similarly, while sometimes an applicant can use website printouts to show how the mark appears “in real life”, these kinds of specimens have some significant restrictions.  These websites must have some method to allow a consumer to actually purchase the goods bearing the mark (such as an “Add to Cart” or “Buy Now” button), and the customer must be able to obtain shipment of the product to addresses in the U.S..  Legitimate filers relying on website evidence in support of an application or maintenance filing must now also provide the full website address (URL) where the purchasing website can be found, as well as the date on which the page was accessed, either through the appropriate fields in the online forms, or on the face of the printed evidence.  See the USPTO’s explanation regarding Specimen requirements, under “Special requirement for URL and date for website specimens.”

It’s shockingly easy to set up a website – even more so, a fake one that is only used for simulating product pages to suggest the products at issue, under the relevant marks, might be available for sale in the U.S..  The “fraud-sters” targeted by these sanctions orders frequently used fake websites and manufactured product pages, which were created solely to create “evidence of use” in support of its applications in the U.S., but were not intended to actually sell the products (and deliver them to purchasers) in the U.S.. The USPTO refers to these fake sites created solely for the purpose of manufacturing fraudulent evidence of use as “specimen farms.”

Irregularities with Specific Records Terminated in these Orders

Within the 535-page PDF published as the Reconsideration Order, only seven pages comprise the USPTO’s substantive order.  The bulk of the document (512 pages within Exhibit A) contains a two-column list of serial numbers/registration numbers subject to potential cancellation in this proceeding, with another page summarizing registrations for which maintenance documents were found to be fraudulent, and 12 pages of serial numbers/registration numbers that were ineligible for reopening.

The substantive decision in the Final Order is longer (27 pages) and contains a more-detailed summary of the evidence collected by the USPTO in connection with prior Show Cause Orders – which evidence was never substantively challenged by Seller Growth (see Final Order at 9) – along with 680 pages of a two-column list of serial numbers/registration numbers that are subject to the cancellation sanction (also named “Exhibit A”).

Accordingly, it is impossible to capture every “irregularity” that may tie some of these marks together so that one could identify some common features that Seller Growth adopted in their scheme.  However, two patterns emerged fairly quickly upon a quick review of these exhibits and are discussed in more detail below.  They are the registration of “nonsense marks” and the registration of pairs of marks that are associated with vastly different goods and services, making it unlikely that a single producer would be the source of the underlying goods being sold under the same umbrella.

Note that each of the records listed in the Final Order should now show as inactive on TSDR – and specifically, “CANCELLED – RECONSIDERED”.  (The USPTO indicated that there may be some delay in reflecting that all of the affected registrations are invalid due to technical limitations in the USPTO’s systems.)

Arbitrary and Fanciful – but (Honestly) Nonsense – Marks

One feature of this constantly evolving fraud scheme is that the bad actors would carefully structure their applications to meet the exact letter of the current law/rules, even though the underlying marks or specimens might feel “fake.”  For example, the strongest kind of trademarks is something that is arbitrary or fanciful, such that it does not merely describe the qualities or features of the products or services offered under the mark, and can act as a “source indicator” to tell the consumer from which source the products or services emanate.  See Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 8-11 (2d Cir. 1976) (explaining source identification and describing levels of distinctiveness of potential marks).  Examples of such arbitrary and fanciful names would be KODAK or POLAROID for photo paper or PEPSI for soft drinks.

By way of comparison, a trademark owner might be able to protect a descriptive mark but only if that mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning based on its long-standing use as a trademark in connection with specific goods and services, such that the consuming public now recognizes these goods or services as emanating from a single source.  (A good example is AMERICAN AIRLINES – which factually describes an airline company based in the US, which is also a correct description for other airlines based in the U.S.  However, after decades of consistent use to identify just one specific airline, consumers now recognize AMERICAN AIRLINES to refer only to one well-known airline.)

Keeping these two types of trademarks in mind, one would think that the goofy, non-sensical and non-pronounceable marks that were selected by these bad actors for purposes of registration would be perfect trademarks.  They would qualify as completely arbitrary and/or fanciful, and no one is likely to have already entered the market with the same or confusingly-similar mark for the same or related goods.  Thus, meeting the criteria of a distinctive mark subject to protection in the U.S., if used in connection with specific goods and services offered to U.S. purchasers.

However, in practice, they’re terrible trademarks because no consumer could ask for them by name.  They are not memorable.  And many times the mark doesn’t have any recognizable association with the owner.  So, you could certainly argue that while the mark was “arbitrary,” it actually fails to identify any single source of the applicable goods . . . perhaps meeting the letter of the law, but not its spirit.  Some random examples of these “terrible” trademarks are below:

Mark	Reg. No.	Goods	Class	Date of First Use
YBLMYWLW	5700826	Electrical lights for use in professional quality photography; Photography darkroom lamps	9	March 2016
FO&OSOBEIT (stylized)	5721282	Long litany of paper products including “cartoon prints” and “construction paper” – as well as “Office perforators” and “three-ring binders”	16	May 13, 2015
SYXKMINDC	5727731	Apparatus for timing sports events; Bracelets; Caskets for clocks and jewels; Charms for key rings; Children’s jewelry; Clocks; Commemorative medals; Ear studs; Jewel pendants; Jewelry rolls; Metal key rings; Pierced earrings; Rings; Split rings of precious metal for keys; Watches; Wooden jewellery boxes	14	July 26, 2018
JMJMLHE	6183364	Acupressure pillows; Foot massage apparatus; Hearing aids; Massage apparatus and instruments; Massage apparatus for eyes; Massaging apparatus for personal use	10	August 23, 2018
BXHAAXHK (& design)	6118062	Hiking boots; Running shoes; Sandals and beach shoes; Skirts and dresses; Sneakers; Snow boots; Sports shoes; Swimwear; Tennis shoes; Underwear; Winter boots	25	October 8, 2019
KXGWOVZZZII	6442472	Bath sandals; Beach shoes; Booties; Boots; Flip flops; Footwear for men; Footwear for women; Infants’ shoes and boots; Insoles; Knitted baby shoes; Ladies’ boots; Leisure shoes; Sandals and beach shoes; Shoulder scarves; Snow boots; Thong footwear; Thong sandals; Waterproof leather shoes and boots; Women’s shoes	25	May 28, 2021
BTQRQTOA	6386609	Bookshelves; Furniture; Wardrobes; Beds, mattresses, pillows and bolsters; Furniture parts; Outdoor holiday decorations made of clear or translucent PVC or polypropylene die cut forms having holiday themed shapes and icons; Picture and photograph frames; Plastic bins; Portable beds for pets; Tables; Toy chests	20	June 23, 2020

Seriously, could you ask for any of these products by brand name?  Or could you type those marks into a search engine without having the exact letter combinations in front of you while you typed?

In the case of the marks listed above, none of these applications claim that the underlying marks mean something in some other language.  Being able to identify the source of specific goods and services based on the mark with which those goods/services travel in U.S. commerce is a core tenant of U.S. trademark law.  Indeed, trademarks that are associated with specific goods and services are capable of generating business goodwill in the mark in connection with those goods or services, because the mark is legitimately used to identify who is providing those goods or services (i.e., acts as a source identifier) in U.S. commerce.  As outlined in more detail above, while these marks technically qualify as “arbitrary” and “fanciful” – I would submit that they actual fail to function as effective source indicators.

Pronounceable, but Registered in Connection with Completely Unrelated Goods

There are also some marks in this extremely long list that are pronounceable – but still have questionable legitimacy.  For instance, some marks were the subject of multiple applications by the same applicants – but in connection with completely unrelated goods, such that it’s highly unlikely that the same manufacturer would produce all of the named goods.

For instance, PAGE ONE (& design) was registered in connection both with “baby bodysuits” and “gilets” (a word I’ve never heard before and had to look up; while American Heritage Dictionary doesn’t have a definition, Webster’s defines these as “a woman’s dickey resembling a waistcoat or blouse”) and “waistbands” among other clothes in Class 25 (see Reg. No. 5733048) and “blood pressure measuring apparatus” and “therapeutic eye hydration goggles for the treatment of dry eyes” among other miscellaneous articles in Class 20 (see Reg. No. 6232062).

Similarly, the mark TOPVISION was registered in connection with “jigsaw puzzles” and “toy drones” among other goods in Class 28 (Reg. No. 5721732) as well as “air fryers” and “electric radiators” and “headlights for automobile”, among other goods, in Class 11 (see Reg. No. 5721733).

And – one more:  GIRIATUS (& design) was registered in connection with “bags for cameras and photographic equipment; . . . computer docking stations; diving suits; . . . gas masks; . . . [and] wireless chargers” among other goods in Class 9 (Reg. No. 5867890) and also with “animal-activated pet feeders” and “coffee stirrers” and “cake molds” among other goods in Class 21 (Reg. No. 5867907).

The suggestion that all of the types of products would legitimately be offered by the same producer, under the same brand, seems completely ludicrous.

Purpose of Trademarks

Recall that the purpose of adopting a word, combination of words, design or logo as a trademark – and then using that mark in connection with specific goods or services – is to allow customers to recognize that mark in the marketplace and associate the underlying products or services offered under that mark as coming from a single source.  The goal is for customers to develop that brand association and go back to that same provider for more of those goods or services under that mark if they want to buy more.  As long as that supplier continues to offer high quality goods or services under those marks over a period of time, that supplier can develop brand value in that mark.

The fact that a good number of these fake marks are un-pronounceable and un-rememberable undermines the possibility that genuine brand value was being developed in connection with these marks. While these marks complied with the letter of the then-current laws and rules, they certainly did not comply with the spirit.

There are a number of other key takeaways from these sanctions orders, which I plan to address in future posts.

But for now, seeing this enforcement action and administrative cancellation of so many nonsense marks should restore public confidence in the reliability of the USPTO’s Trademark Register, and it’s a breath of fresh air to those of us who practice law in this space.  Based on the length of time it took to reach these conclusions, and the breadth and depth of the show cause orders and underlying prosecution history for each of the now-cancelled registrations, I know it took the USPTO hours upon hours of investigation, research and deep dives into tens of thousands of trademark records.  No wonder it took several years before the process could be completed, but having these decisions on the books should (hopefully) make it easier to stop this kind of fraud on the USPTO in the future.  There are certainly other ways in which this time and energy could be spent to improve the overall trademark systems – as long as other bad actors don’t come up with yet another scheme that diverts USPTO resources.