A jewelry or watch company should conduct a comprehensive trademark search before committing to a new brand name, collection name, logo, monogram, or other important identifier.
The search should go far beyond checking whether the exact name appears in the USPTO database.
A meaningful pre-launch clearance search should investigate confusingly similar federal registrations and pending applications, alternative spellings and pronunciations, related goods and services, common-law marketplace use, state records, domains, social media, logos and design marks, and relevant international markets.
The USPTO strongly recommends conducting this broader clearance analysis because a conflicting trademark can lead to a likelihood-of-confusion refusal, opposition or cancellation proceeding, infringement dispute, or expensive rebrand.
For jewelry and watch businesses, timing is particularly important. Packaging, engraved products, watch dials, jewelry boxes, certificates, retail displays, ecommerce photography, and wholesale materials can become expensive to replace once production begins.
Key Takeaways
Do not search only the exact name. Trademarks can conflict because of similarity in sound, appearance, meaning, or overall commercial impression even when their spellings differ.
Do not search only Class 14. The USPTO warns that restricting a search to one International Class can hide commercially related goods or services in other classes.
Pending applications matter. An earlier-filed pending application can cause examination of a later application to be suspended and can eventually support a Section 2(d) refusal if the earlier mark registers.
Dead records should not automatically be ignored. They cannot directly block federal registration while dead, but the former owner may still be using the mark and possess common-law rights.
Logo searches should use more than one method. Since April 2026, the USPTO has offered a beta AI image-search feature. The USPTO expressly states that image search is supplemental and recommends using both image search and traditional design-code searching because the methods can return different results.
Why Should a Jewelry Brand Search Before Launch?
A trademark search gives the business an opportunity to evaluate risk while changing the proposed brand is still relatively inexpensive.
Imagine a jewelry company that spends several months creating a collection under the name AURELIA TIME.
The company engraves the mark onto clasps, orders thousands of jewelry boxes, photographs the products, launches a Shopify store, signs two retail accounts, and prepares a trade-show booth.
Only afterward does it discover an earlier AURELIA registration covering watches and jewelry.
Even if the company ultimately believes it has arguments supporting coexistence, the dispute has arrived after substantial money has already been invested.
A pre-launch search shifts that legal analysis earlier, when the company can still modify or replace the name without dismantling an established commercial identity.
The USPTO specifically recommends comprehensive searching as a way to reduce the risk of refusals, opposition proceedings, cancellation disputes, and infringement litigation.
Does a Trademark Search Guarantee That the USPTO Will Approve the Application?
No.
Trademark clearance is a risk assessment, not a guarantee.
The examining attorney assigned to a federal application will conduct an independent search of the USPTO’s federal records. The examiner may reach a different conclusion concerning the similarity of the marks or relatedness of the goods and services.
The absence of a conflicting federal mark also does not resolve every other registration requirement.
A proposed mark may face issues involving descriptiveness, ownership, specimens, failure to function, or another statutory basis for refusal.
Common-law uses can also be difficult to locate comprehensively.
The purpose of the search is therefore to make a more informed launch and filing decision, not to promise a particular examination result.
What Should a Jewelry or Watch Company Define Before Searching?
Start with the actual business model.
The company should identify what it plans to sell at launch and which products or services represent realistic near-term expansion.
Under Nice 13-2026, traditional jewelry, imitation jewelry, precious and semi-precious stones, clocks, watches, jewelry boxes, and many jewelry and watch components generally fall within Class 14. Smartwatches generally fall in Class 9.
The same company may also plan to provide retail, repair, design, appraisal, engraving, software, or other services.
Those activities matter because trademark conflicts depend on marketplace relatedness, not merely on whether two businesses use the same class number.
A search for a brand intended to become a broader luxury or lifestyle label should reflect that commercial plan.
Should You Start With the Exact Jewelry Brand Name?
Yes.
The exact proposed wording is a logical starting point.
Search the complete mark first.
Then test obvious formatting variations, including spaces, punctuation, plural forms, hyphens, apostrophes, and other minor changes.
If the proposed name contains several words, search important individual components separately.
For AURELIA TIME, for example, the search might expand to AURELIA, AURELIA WATCHES, AURELIA JEWELS, AURELIAN, AURELIO, and other commercially reasonable variations.
The USPTO recommends beginning relatively narrowly and progressively expanding the search to less exact forms.
An exact-match search is useful.
It is not clearance.
Why Should You Search Similar Spellings and Pronunciations?
Because trademarks do not need to be spelled identically to conflict.
The current TMEP explains that word marks are compared according to appearance, sound, meaning, and commercial impression.
The USPTO similarly explains that confusing similarity may arise through sound, appearance, meaning, or overall commercial impression.
A jewelry company proposing LUMORA should therefore consider possible variations such as LUMORAH, LUMERA, LUMORA JEWELS, LUMORA TIME, and other names customers might pronounce or remember similarly.
Phonetic searching is particularly important in fashion and jewelry because invented spellings are common.
Changing one letter may do very little if customers still hear essentially the same name.
Does Adding “Jewelry,” “Watches,” or “Luxury” Make a Name Safe?
Not automatically.
Descriptive or highly suggestive industry wording may contribute less to the overall commercial impression than the distinctive portion of the mark.
Suppose another company owns VELORA for necklaces.
A proposed VELORA FINE JEWELRY mark does not automatically become legally distinct merely because FINE JEWELRY has been added.
The marks must be considered in their entireties, but certain elements can have greater source-identifying significance than others.
A search should therefore isolate the dominant and memorable wording rather than relying on generic or descriptive additions to create distance.
Should a Search Cover Active Federal Registrations?
Absolutely.
Live registrations are central to federal clearance because they can directly support a likelihood-of-confusion refusal when the marks and goods or services are sufficiently related.
Each significant record should be reviewed beyond the search-results screen.
Relevant information can include the mark itself, owner, filing date, registration date, identification of goods and services, status, disclaimers, drawing type, and other prosecution information.
A luxury brand’s public-facing trade name may also differ from the legal entity that owns its trademarks.
Searching only the names of known jewelry competitors can therefore miss registrations owned by holding companies or affiliates.
Why Do Pending Trademark Applications Matter?
Because filing date and priority within the federal examination system can materially affect a later application.
Current TMEP guidance provides that when an examining attorney identifies an earlier-filed pending application that may conflict with a later filing, examination of the later application can be suspended while the earlier application remains unresolved.
If the earlier application registers, the later applicant may receive a likelihood-of-confusion refusal.
If the earlier application is abandoned, examination of the later filing can resume.
A jewelry company should therefore investigate pending applications rather than filtering its clearance review to registrations alone.
An earlier pending application can represent a developing obstacle even though no registration certificate has been issued yet.
Should You Review the Earlier Application’s Prosecution History?
Yes, when the record is significant enough to influence the launch decision.
A pending application’s current status can tell only part of the story.
The prosecution record may reveal that the applicant is responding to an Office Action, has been approved for publication, is involved in an opposition, or is approaching abandonment.
That information can help distinguish a serious near-term obstacle from a record requiring continued monitoring.
It can also affect whether the new business should delay launch, adopt another name, investigate coexistence, or continue with a particular filing strategy.
Can Dead Trademark Records Be Ignored?
Not completely.
The USPTO instructs federal searchers to focus primarily on live marks because only live applications and registrations can block a new application through the federal examination process.
But the agency expressly cautions against completely disregarding dead records.
A canceled registration or abandoned application may correspond to a trademark that remains in commercial use, and continued use can support common-law trademark rights.
A dead record can also lead the searcher to an older jewelry company, regional watch seller, discontinued federal filing, former collection, or brand that never completed registration but remains active in the marketplace.
When a dead record looks relevant, investigate further.
Should a Jewelry Trademark Search Be Limited to Class 14?
No.
This is one of the most important search mistakes to avoid.
The USPTO specifically warns that narrowing a trademark search by International Class can cause searchers to miss conflicting marks for commercially related goods or services that happen to fall in different classes.
International Classification is an administrative system.
Likelihood of confusion is a marketplace analysis.
The current TMEP also states that when marks are very similar, less similarity between the associated goods or services may be needed to support a likelihood-of-confusion finding.
A jewelry company’s search should therefore follow realistic commercial relationships rather than one class number.
What Other Classes Should a Jewelry Brand Search?
The answer depends on the business, but coordinated classes can provide a useful starting point.
The USPTO explains that coordinated classes group goods and services that may be sufficiently related that consumers could expect them to come from the same source.
For example, clothing in Class 25 is coordinated with jewelry in Class 14, leather goods such as handbags in Class 18, and retail store services in Class 35 because businesses commonly offer those products and services together.
A jewelry or watch company may therefore need to investigate apparel, handbags, retail services, repair services, smartwatches, technology, or other related categories depending on its plans.
Coordinated classes help organize the search.
They are not an exhaustive legal rule.
Should a Watch Brand Search Class 9 as Well as Class 14?
Often, particularly when the business involves smartwatches or connected devices.
Traditional watches generally fall in Class 14, while smartwatches and wearable activity trackers generally fall in Class 9 under Nice 13-2026.
A company offering both products should therefore search both traditional watch and technology markets.
If the smartwatch uses downloadable software, mobile applications, data services, or cloud-based features under the same brand, those offerings should also be considered during clearance.
An earlier mark associated with wearable technology can become commercially relevant even though the proposed company initially thinks of itself as a watch brand rather than a software company.
Should You Search Jewelry Retail and Repair Services?
Yes, when those activities are commercially relevant.
A consumer may expect a jewelry brand, jewelry store, repair service, and related retail operation using the same distinctive name to come from one company.
The likelihood-of-confusion analysis does not require the respective goods and services to be identical.
If the planned brand will operate a boutique, online retail platform, repair department, custom design studio, or other prominent service, search similar service marks as part of clearance.
A product-only search can overlook a significant service registration that occupies closely related commercial territory.
Do Collection Names Need Separate Searches?
Yes.
Clearing the primary jewelry-company name does not automatically clear every collection, product-line, or watch-family name the company later adopts.
Suppose LUMERA clears as the house mark.
The company still needs to investigate CELESTIAL ARC before launching that collection.
A commercially significant collection name may appear more prominently than the house mark on retailer websites, social media, editorial coverage, or product searches.
Important sub-brands deserve their own clearance analysis.
This is particularly true for continuing names expected to remain in use for multiple products or seasons.
Should Individual Watch Model Names Be Searched?
Important model-family names should be evaluated individually when they are intended to function as trademarks.
A model number such as X-214 may merely identify a particular configuration.
A distinctive name used across a continuing watch family can develop independent trademark significance.
The search strategy should distinguish ordinary model or stock designations from genuine sub-brands.
When the model-family name will appear prominently in advertising or retailer listings and is expected to remain commercially important, clearance should occur before launch.
How Do You Search a Jewelry Logo?
A logo search requires visual analysis rather than only word searching.
The USPTO uses six-digit design search codes to categorize prominent design elements contained in visual trademarks.
The searcher should identify the logo’s dominant features and locate the corresponding design codes.
For example, a jewelry brand logo may contain a crown, gemstone, star, flower, animal, geometric figure, letterform, clock element, or another symbol.
Search the strongest visual elements individually and in relevant combinations.
The goal is to locate designs consumers could perceive as visually similar, not every trademark containing one incidental decorative detail.
What Is the USPTO AI Image Search?
In April 2026, the USPTO introduced a beta image-search feature allowing logged-in users to upload an image and search for federal trademarks containing similar visual elements.
This can be especially useful for jewelry and watch brands built around monograms, symbols, emblems, gemstone graphics, crowns, animals, or abstract designs.
The feature works more like visual image searching than traditional keyword searching.
It can therefore surface design references that may be difficult to locate through text alone.
Does AI Image Search Replace Design Codes?
No.
The USPTO expressly describes AI image search as a supplemental strategy and states that it does not replace a traditional clearance search.
The agency specifically notes that design-code searching and image searching may produce different results and recommends using both.
For an important jewelry logo, a stronger approach is therefore to combine:
AI image search.
Design-code searches.
Word-element searching where applicable.
Marketplace logo searching.
Those methods address different ways a visual conflict may appear.
Why Is the 2026 Image Search Update Important for Jewelry Brands?
Jewelry branding is unusually visual.
Monograms, gemstone outlines, crowns, floral elements, geometric symbols, watch-face imagery, and stylized initials are commonly used without accompanying wording.
Traditional word searches can miss those conflicts.
The new USPTO image search adds another way to locate visually similar federal records, but it should be treated as an additional screening tool rather than a conclusion that a logo is clear.
An experienced search still requires reviewing the actual marks, goods and services, and commercial context of the results.
What Is a Common-Law Trademark Search?
A common-law search investigates trademarks being used in commerce even when they are not federally registered.
Federal registration is not the only way trademark rights can develop in the United States.
The USPTO expressly recommends internet searching for third-party uses because earlier common-law use can affect the rights obtained by a later federal registrant.
For jewelry and watches, common-law searching may include independent boutiques, Etsy-type marketplaces, fashion platforms, bridal websites, watch dealers, department stores, crowdfunding projects, wholesale catalogs, social media, trade-show exhibitors, and ordinary web searches.
A small earlier user should not automatically be dismissed because it lacks a federal registration.
What Should You Search on Jewelry Marketplaces?
Search the proposed name and reasonable variations.
Look at store names, product-line names, seller profiles, collection names, packaging shown in photographs, logos, and customer references.
Marketplace results can reveal brands that operate almost entirely through third-party platforms and therefore have little standalone web presence.
The search should also investigate whether apparently inactive listings reflect genuinely abandoned activity or continuing sales through another channel.
The objective is not simply to count uses.
It is to identify commercial uses that could affect priority, confusion, or the practical strength of the proposed mark.
Do State Business Records Matter?
Yes, but their significance should be understood correctly.
State corporation, LLC, assumed-name, and trademark records can reveal businesses that do not appear in the federal trademark system.
An entity filing does not necessarily prove trademark ownership or trademark priority.
Likewise, approval of the new company’s own LLC name does not establish that the customer-facing brand is legally clear.
Entity-name rules and trademark law answer different questions.
State records are therefore investigative leads rather than final clearance conclusions.
Does Domain Availability Mean the Jewelry Brand Is Available?
No.
A domain registrar can allow a company to purchase a domain even when another party possesses trademark rights.
The same applies to Instagram, TikTok, Pinterest, YouTube, and other username availability.
The USPTO’s comprehensive-search guidance treats domain registries and internet searching as components of clearance rather than substitutes for federal and common-law analysis.
Domain and social media searches remain useful because they can uncover active marketplace use, abandoned branding projects, and likely consumer variations.
They simply do not answer the trademark question by themselves.
Should You Search Packaging and Trade Dress?
Potentially, particularly for luxury jewelry and watch companies.
A brand may develop recognizable packaging alongside its name.
Distinctive box structures, label arrangements, color combinations, pouches, certificates, ribbons, or other presentation features can potentially become important source identifiers.
Federal searches can identify registered design and trade dress marks.
Marketplace investigation can reveal similar presentations that may not be federally registered.
Ordinary industry conventions should be evaluated realistically.
Black boxes, velvet pouches, metallic lettering, and other common luxury cues may be widely used.
The concern becomes greater when the overall presentation closely resembles a distinctive established combination associated with one competitor.
Should Founder Names and Surnames Be Searched?
Yes.
Using the founder’s real surname does not automatically make that name legally available as a jewelry brand.
Another company may have earlier trademark rights in the same or a confusingly similar name for jewelry, watches, retail services, apparel, or related products.
The search should consider the complete personal name, surname alone, initials, common shortened versions, and reasonable variants.
A crowded surname field can also affect how strong the resulting trademark may be even if no single record is an obvious bar.
Should You Search Internationally Before Launching a Jewelry Brand?
Yes, when international expansion is realistically planned.
A U.S. trademark clearance search does not establish availability in another country.
The USPTO’s comprehensive-search guidance identifies Madrid Monitor, WIPO’s Global Brand Database, EUIPO resources, TMview, and other international tools as potential components of a broader clearance search.
A jewelry business should prioritize jurisdictions where it expects to sell, manufacture, license, exhibit, appoint distributors, or establish significant commercial relationships.
International searching can also reveal foreign-language meanings, transliterations, or existing brands that may affect worldwide packaging and expansion plans.
Does International Clearance Need to Happen Before the U.S. Filing?
Not necessarily in every case, but it should occur before the company becomes committed to a supposedly global brand.
A U.S.-focused startup might initially prioritize U.S. clearance and filing.
A jewelry company preparing simultaneous launches in New York, London, Paris, and Dubai requires a different approach.
The broader the planned launch, the earlier international screening becomes commercially valuable.
Global packaging, domains, advertising, retailer contracts, and product engraving can make a later international rebrand costly.
How Should Search Results Be Analyzed?
Do not simply count records.
One nearly identical arbitrary trademark for rings and watches may present far greater risk than thirty registrations containing a common term such as GOLD, FINE, TIME, LUXURY, or DIAMOND.
Each meaningful record should be evaluated according to factors including:
Similarity of the marks.
Strength or weakness of the shared wording.
Relatedness of the goods or services.
Filing and registration history.
Marketplace use.
Trade channels and customers.
Current status.
The current TMEP emphasizes that the more similar two marks are, the less related their respective goods or services may need to be to support a likelihood-of-confusion finding.
Analysis matters more than the number of hits.
What Does a Crowded Trademark Field Mean?
A crowded field can have more than one implication.
If numerous jewelry brands use a particular term, that term may be relatively weak and consumers may be accustomed to paying attention to differences elsewhere in the marks.
At the same time, choosing crowded wording may make searching, registration, monitoring, and enforcement more difficult.
A jewelry company should therefore distinguish between “no obvious blocking registration” and “strong trademark.”
Those are not the same conclusion.
A clearance search can identify not only legal obstacles but also opportunities to select a more distinctive and defensible brand.
When Should the Search Be Completed?
Before major branding investments.
Ideally, the business should search before it orders permanent packaging, engraves products, prints certificates, signs major retailer agreements, pays for extensive photography, or begins a large advertising campaign.
If several months pass between clearance and launch, refreshing the search can be prudent.
New applications and marketplace uses can appear after the original search.
A search is a snapshot of a changing commercial landscape.
How Does Clearance Affect the Trademark Filing Strategy?
The search should inform the application, not exist as a separate exercise.
Once the company understands the landscape, it can decide whether to file the name in standard characters, the logo separately, or both.
It can identify which products and services deserve coverage.
It can decide whether an intent-to-use filing is appropriate for products that have not yet launched.
It can also determine whether certain collection names require separate applications.
If the company materially changes the proposed mark after clearance, the revised version should be searched again.
The filed mark should reflect the commercial identity the company actually evaluated.
Can an Earlier Pending Mark Force a Jewelry Application Into Suspension?
Yes.
Current TMEP guidance provides that if an examining attorney identifies an earlier-filed pending application that could present a likelihood-of-confusion conflict, the later-filed application can be suspended while the earlier application’s status is resolved.
This can significantly delay the later application.
If the earlier mark registers, a Section 2(d) refusal may follow.
If it is abandoned, the later application may return to examination.
This is why pending applications belong in pre-launch clearance analysis, not merely registrations.
Example: Searching a New Jewelry and Watch Brand
Suppose a company plans to launch VELARIS for necklaces, bracelets, rings, and mechanical watches.
It expects to add smartwatches and leather handbags within two years.
The first federal searches investigate VELARIS exactly.
The search then expands to phonetic and visual variations such as VELARES, VELARIS JEWELS, VELARIS WATCHES, VELARIS TIME, and other reasonable alternatives.
The company reviews live registrations and pending applications, including relevant records beyond Class 14.
Because the expansion plan includes smartwatches, Class 9 technology marks receive additional attention. Because handbags are planned, related fashion and leather-goods branding is investigated.
The proposed logo includes a stylized star and V monogram.
The company searches relevant design codes and uses the USPTO’s 2026 beta image-search tool, understanding that the agency recommends both methods because they can return different results.
Marketplace searching covers jewelry retailers, watch dealers, fashion platforms, social media, domains, state records, and other common-law sources.
If international expansion is planned, relevant foreign databases are reviewed as well.
Only after the company evaluates the strongest references does it decide whether VELARIS is commercially acceptable and how the trademark applications should be structured.
That is a clearance search.
Typing VELARIS into one USPTO search box and finding no exact registration is not.
Frequently Asked Questions About Jewelry Trademark Searches
How do I search a jewelry brand name before launching?
Begin with the exact name, then expand to alternative spellings, pronunciations, meanings, and commercially similar marks. Review federal registrations, pending applications, related goods and services, common-law uses, state records, domains, and relevant marketplace sources.
Is searching Class 14 enough for a jewelry brand?
No. The USPTO warns that narrowing a search to one International Class can hide marks for commercially related goods and services in other classes.
Do jewelry trademarks have to be identical to conflict?
No. Marks can be confusingly similar because of appearance, sound, meaning, or overall commercial impression.
Should I search pending trademark applications?
Yes. Earlier-filed pending applications can lead to suspension of a later application and eventually a likelihood-of-confusion refusal if the earlier mark registers.
Should I ignore dead trademark registrations?
No. Dead records cannot directly bar registration while dead, but the mark may still be in use and supported by common-law rights.
Does an available Instagram handle mean the jewelry brand is clear?
No. Username and domain availability are not trademark clearance.
Should I search collection names separately?
Yes. Clearing a house mark does not automatically clear independent collection, product-line, or watch-family names.
How do I search a jewelry logo?
Use relevant USPTO design search codes, the USPTO beta AI image search, word-element searching when appropriate, and marketplace visual searching. The USPTO recommends combining design-code and image-search methods.
Does the USPTO have AI image search for trademarks?
Yes. The beta image-search feature launched in April 2026 and allows logged-in users to upload an image to find visually similar federal trademark records.
Does the AI image search replace design-code searching?
No. The USPTO says the tools can return different results and recommends using both.
Can a dead trademark still cause problems?
Potentially. Continued marketplace use can support common-law rights even when the federal application or registration is dead.
Do I need to search outside the United States?
If the company realistically plans foreign manufacturing, sales, licensing, distribution, or expansion, international clearance should be considered. The USPTO identifies several international databases as components of comprehensive searching.
Can a trademark attorney guarantee that the name is available?
No search can eliminate every risk or guarantee registration. Clearance is an informed assessment based on the records and marketplace evidence that can reasonably be found.
Final Thoughts
A trademark search for a jewelry or watch brand should do much more than answer whether the exact name appears in the USPTO database.
The company should investigate similar spellings, pronunciations, meanings, and commercial impressions. It should review live registrations and pending applications and investigate relevant dead records when continued common-law use appears possible.
The search should also extend beyond Class 14.
Jewelry can be commercially related to apparel, handbags, retail services, repair services, watches, technology products, and other categories even when the Nice Classification places those offerings in different classes. International classes help organize trademark records, but they do not determine whether consumers may believe two businesses share a common source.
Visual branding deserves its own search strategy. Since April 2026, the USPTO has offered beta AI-powered image searching for trademarks, but the agency expressly recommends using that feature together with conventional design-code searching rather than treating AI results as a substitute.
Common-law searching remains equally important. The USPTO specifically recommends checking internet and marketplace use because earlier users can possess rights without a federal registration.
Finally, the search should occur before the brand becomes expensive to change.
A name engraved onto thousands of products, printed across luxury packaging, incorporated into retailer contracts, and advertised internationally is much harder to replace than a proposed name on an internal branding document.
The strongest pre-launch strategy therefore treats trademark clearance as part of product development itself.
Search first.
Understand the risk.
Then invest in the brand.
Primary Authorities and Sources
USPTO, Comprehensive Clearance Search for Similar Trademarks. The USPTO recommends reviewing federal registrations and pending applications, state records, domain registries, common-law internet uses, and relevant international databases as part of comprehensive trademark clearance.
USPTO, Federal Trademark Searching. Current search guidance recommends progressively expanding searches, considering alternate spellings and pronunciations, searching designs through design codes, avoiding excessive class restrictions, and investigating relevant dead records for possible common-law use.
USPTO, Likelihood of Confusion. Trademarks can be confusingly similar based on appearance, sound, meaning, or overall commercial impression, and the relevant goods or services must also be commercially related.
TMEP §1207.01, May 2026. The current TMEP provides that marks are compared according to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression and states that the more similar the marks, the less similarity between the goods or services may be required to support a likelihood-of-confusion finding.
TMEP provisions concerning prior-filed pending applications. Earlier-filed pending applications may result in suspension of later-filed applications while the earlier applications remain unresolved.
USPTO, Using Coordinated Classes in Your Federal Trademark Search. Coordinated classes help identify goods and services that consumers may expect to originate from the same source even when they occupy different International Classes.
USPTO Trademark Search System Updates. The USPTO’s AI-enabled image search became available in beta in April 2026. The agency states that image search is supplemental and recommends using both image search and traditional design search codes.
Nice Classification, Thirteenth Edition, version 2026. Nice 13-2026 became effective January 1, 2026. Traditional jewelry and watches generally fall within Class 14, while smartwatches generally fall within Class 9.
Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure, May 2026. May 2026 is the current edition of the TMEP.
About the Author
Abraham Cohn is Managing Partner of Cohn Legal, PLLC and heads the firm’s Intellectual Property and Transactional Group. His practice includes intellectual property protection, trademark screening and prosecution, licensing, and strategic commercial transactions involving brands, manufacturing, supply, distribution, and related business arrangements. His public biography specifically identifies trademark screening searches and USPTO trademark prosecution among his areas of work.