How a Missed USPTO Deadline Led to the Abandonment of a Trademark Application: A Client's Experience

How a Missed USPTO Deadline Led to the Abandonment of a Trademark Application: A Client's Experience

On 11 May 2026, we published an article entitled "Our Experience with Trademark Lawyer Katrina Fama and MarkATLaw.com", detailing our concerns regarding the handling of a U.S. trademark application by trademark attorney Katrina Fama.

At the time of publication, we understood that the application had been abandoned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) after an Office Action deadline passed without a response being filed.

Since publishing that article, further developments have occurred which raise additional questions regarding the handling of the matter.

The services in question were sold to us as "Trademark Application Package 3" at a cost of approximately $1,399, plus processing charges and official USPTO filing fees. The package description expressly stated that responses to Office Actions were included as part of the service.

Our records show that the package fee was paid in full. We also separately paid the official USPTO filing fee that was invoiced to us, by Trademark Counsels.

After discovering that the application had been abandoned, we contacted Katrina Fama seeking an explanation and a solution.

During those communications, the explanations provided appeared to change over time.

Initially, it appeared that Katrina Fama did not recall the details of the matter and requested information concerning the application. Subsequently, questions were raised regarding the service package purchased. We were then advised that steps could be taken to revive the application. More recently, we were informed that an invoice had allegedly not been paid.

We dispute that assertion.

Our records show that the invoices issued to us were paid in full. Furthermore, no additional invoice relating to the matters now being raised was ever received by us.

An additional development concerns the involvement of Trademark Counsels.

The invoices relating to the engagement were issued by Trademark Counsels and referenced both the firm and the attorneys involved in the matter. As clients, we considered it reasonable to assume that the firm issuing invoices and receiving payment for trademark services would have some level of responsibility or oversight regarding those services.

To our surprise, Michael Beck advised that he had nothing to do with the ongoing trademark application itself. He claimed that his only job was to collect the money and file the application.

We find that position difficult to reconcile with the documentary record. According to the USPTO records, Michael Beck was listed as the correspondence contact for the application and was the individual to whom the USPTO directed communications relating to the matter, including the Office Actions issued during prosecution of the application.

As clients, we also find this position difficult to reconcile with the documentation in our possession, including invoices issued by Michael Beck and Trademark Counsels in connection with the engagement and the description contained in the initial invoice outlining the level of service for which we paid Trademark Counsels.

In this case it seems that Michael Beck's role was to collect the money, file the application, receive notices from the USPTO and in this case, ignore them.

However, certain facts are not in dispute.

A trademark application was filed.

The USPTO issued an Office Action.

A response was not filed before the deadline expired.

The application was declared abandoned.

The abandonment was discovered by the client rather than being proactively communicated.

Questions raised after that discovery have produced explanations that, in our view, have been inconsistent and unsatisfactory.

The purpose of this article is not to determine fault. Rather, it is to place the facts on the public record so that other businesses can make informed decisions when selecting trademark representation.

Businesses considering trademark services should carefully establish who is responsible for monitoring deadlines, who is responsible for responding to Office Actions, what procedures exist to prevent abandonment, and what remedies are available if critical deadlines are missed.

Based on our experience, that understanding is essential and based on our experience, we cannot recommend Katrina Fama, Michael Beck, or Trademark Counsels to businesses seeking trademark protection.

###

Editor's Note: If you have had similar experiences with Michael Beck, Trademark Counsels and or attorney Katrina Fama at MarkATLaw.com, contact us.