Our Perspective on the Trademark Dispute
Federal case law and USPTO regulations establish standards for trademark priority and likelihood of confusion. Below is our interpretation of how these precedents relate to our situation. This page presents our perspective based on our evidence and experience.
Federal court decisions and USPTO regulations that directly apply
Zazu Designs v. L'Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1992)
The court held that mere business formation, planning, or intent is not "use in commerce." Trademark rights arise only when the mark is used to sell goods or services to real customers.
In re Bose Corp., 580 F.3d 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
A trademark application can be refused or canceled if it contains materially inaccurate statements, even if made recklessly rather than maliciously. The key question: Would the USPTO have acted differently if it knew the truth?
The applicant asserted:
Our evidence suggests otherwise:
In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755 (TTAB 2016)
The TTAB emphasized that petitions to make special are extraordinary remedies. They must be supported by accurate, documented facts. Abuse of the process or misleading claims undermine the petition's validity.
In re Detroit Athletic Co., 903 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
Adding "THE" to an otherwise identical mark does not avoid likelihood of confusion. Consumers focus on the dominant wording.
TMEP §1201.03(b) & Wells Fargo & Co. v. Stagecoach Props., 685 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1982)
Trademark use by a related company counts toward priority. Control and continuity of the mark matter more than the name on paper.
Our parent company owned and operated:
How the facts align with legal standards
| Legal Standard | ThePerfectHOA.com™ (Us) | PerfectHOA.com® (Them)* |
|---|---|---|
| First Use in Commerce | 2024 - Documented | 2025 - Claimed |
| Domain Registration | March 22, 2024 | 2025 |
| Customer Billing | December 2024 - Stripe Records | Unverified |
| Corporate Registration | Georgia - January 2019 | Florida - 2025 |
| Web Archive Evidence | August 2024 - Wayback Machine | None Provided |
| Evidence Quality | Official Records, Timestamps, Metadata | Screenshots - No Timestamps |
| Statements to USPTO | Documented Evidence | Disputed Claims |
*PerfectHOA® is a registered trademark of PerfectHOA, Inc. We are not affiliated with PerfectHOA, Inc. This comparison is based on our interpretation of publicly available information and our own documented evidence.
Questions we believe should have been addressed during examination
We submitted documented evidence to the USPTO, including:
We do not believe our evidence was adequately considered. We are sharing our experience to document what happened and to help others who may face similar situations.
Under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18(b), all USPTO submissions must be truthful.
Under TMEP § 1715.01(a), inaccuracies affecting examination should be considered.
We believe these standards should have been applied more rigorously in our case.
Our situation aligns with cases where applications were refused, canceled, or overturned.
USPTO refusal reconsideration • TTAB opposition • Cancellation action
Learn about what happened and why we're transitioning to a new brand.
View Our Statement