Here’s a example of a frequent error that pro se applicants make (those that file their own applications rather than filing through a correspondent-attorney or firm): Assuming that they can bank on their familial name to register a mark that may otherwise conflict one or more existing registrations.
In this example, TESLA POWER for DC generators (in class 7) was filed in April 2015 by owner DARIUS TESLOVICH, only to be refused by the examiner citing registrations TESLA and TESLA. Notwithstanding whether Mr. Teslovich conducted even the most basic clearance search, it’s safe to assume that any IP attorney would have advised against filing this application, isn’t it?
Similarly, what if the name in question was Applovitch or Applebaum, wanting to file an application for computers, mobile devices, or even baked goods? Wouldn’t the same obstacles to registration be presented to the applicant?
Or, is it theoretically possible that in this case the applicant has a viable application (perhaps even co-exisitence)? If so, applicant clearly needs representation to advance his cause.
By the way, Towergate can provide pro se refusal data or similar notifications to interested firms that might wish to actively pursue such opportunities with and on behalf of pro se applicants.