Yes. A company preparing to launch a cigar, tobacco, or vape brand should generally conduct a comprehensive trademark clearance search before committing substantial resources to the proposed name.
The search should occur before cigar bands are printed, vape packaging is manufactured, distributor agreements are finalized, websites are launched, retailer presentations are circulated, or significant marketing investment begins.
A proper search also requires more than looking for an identical name in the USPTO database. Trademark conflicts can arise from marks that look different but sound alike, have similar meanings, or create similar overall commercial impressions. The associated products or services also do not have to be identical. The USPTO identifies likelihood of confusion as one of the most common reasons trademark applications are refused.
For cigar and vape businesses, early clearance can be especially important because branding decisions often become intertwined with product packaging, manufacturing, distribution, regulatory submissions, and retailer relationships. Discovering a serious trademark conflict after those investments have been made can make rebranding substantially more difficult.
There is also an additional issue for regulated tobacco products. Federal trademark use must be lawful, and FDA requirements concerning the lawful marketing of new tobacco products can affect whether commercial use can support federal registration.
Trademark clearance and regulatory compliance should therefore be treated as related parts of the pre-launch process, although they answer different legal questions.
What Is a Trademark Clearance Search for a Cigar or Vape Brand?
A trademark clearance search is an investigation into whether a proposed brand name, product name, logo, or other trademark conflicts with rights already held or used by another party.
The USPTO recommends a comprehensive clearance search before filing a federal trademark application. That search can include federal registrations and pending applications, state trademark and business registries, domain information, international databases when appropriate, and internet research for common-law trademark use.
For a cigar or vape company, the search should be tailored to the industry.
A company may need to examine other cigar brands, cigarette marks, electronic cigarette brands, oral vaporizers for smokers, e-liquid brands, smoking accessories, tobacconists, vape retailers, cigar lounges, and other commercially related businesses.
The goal is not simply to find an identical registration.
The goal is to determine whether another party’s rights could interfere with the proposed brand’s registration, use, expansion, or enforcement.
Why Should the Search Happen Before the Brand Launch?
Trademark problems generally become more expensive after a brand is commercially entrenched.
Before launch, changing a proposed name may require updating design files and internal planning.
After launch, changing that same name could require replacing cigar bands, boxes, labels, vape packaging, ecommerce listings, promotional materials, social accounts, retailer information, distributor catalogs, signage, and advertising.
For a regulated product, branding may also appear throughout documentation prepared during a lengthy product-development or regulatory process.
The USPTO specifically recommends clearance searching because it can help businesses avoid costly likelihood-of-confusion refusals, TTAB disputes, and trademark infringement litigation.
Cohn Legal’s existing tobacco, cigar, and vape guidance similarly emphasizes early clearance because companies can otherwise invest in names and visual branding that prove difficult to protect or use.
Is Searching the Exact Brand Name Enough?
No.
An exact-match search is useful as an initial screening step, but it is not a comprehensive trademark search.
The USPTO explains that marks can be confusingly similar because of appearance, sound, meaning, or overall commercial impression. They do not have to be spelled identically.
Suppose a cigar company proposes the hypothetical mark MONTERRA.
A search limited to MONTERRA could miss MONTERA, MONTE TERRA, MONTERRA RESERVE, or another mark that consumers might pronounce or remember similarly.
These examples are hypothetical and have not been cleared for trademark availability.
The search should therefore include meaningful spelling variations, phonetic equivalents, spacing variations, singular and plural forms, shortened versions, and other commercially plausible variations.
Should You Search Similar Pronunciations?
Yes.
Phonetic similarity can create trademark problems even when spelling differs considerably.
The USPTO specifically instructs searchers to consider whether another mark sounds similar to the proposed trademark.
This issue is particularly relevant in cigar and vape branding because companies frequently adopt stylized spellings, foreign-sounding names, abbreviations, and invented terms.
Changing one letter or adding punctuation does not necessarily create a legally distinct trademark if consumers are likely to pronounce both marks the same way.
A search should therefore be conducted from the perspective of a purchaser hearing the brand name spoken in a cigar shop, vape store, lounge, advertisement, video, podcast, or conversation.
Should You Search Similar Meanings?
Yes.
Trademark similarity is not limited to spelling and pronunciation.
Two marks can create a similar commercial impression because they communicate substantially similar meanings.
The USPTO specifically identifies similarity in meaning as one way marks can become confusingly similar.
This means clearance may require evaluating translations, synonyms, imagery, concepts, and other semantic similarities depending on the proposed brand.
A cigar company using a foreign-language term should not assume that the English equivalent is irrelevant.
Likewise, translating an existing brand into another language does not automatically eliminate trademark risk.
Does Adding “Cigars,” “Vape,” or “Tobacco” Avoid a Trademark Conflict?
Not necessarily.
Adding descriptive or generic industry wording to an existing distinctive term may do little to change the overall commercial impression.
Suppose an earlier mark consists of a distinctive word and a later applicant adds CIGARS, TOBACCO, VAPOR, VAPE, RESERVE, PREMIUM, or another relatively weak term.
Consumers may continue to focus primarily on the shared distinctive wording.
The correct analysis considers the marks as a whole, but different portions can carry different source-identifying significance.
A search should therefore examine the distinctive core of a proposed brand separately rather than searching only the complete phrase exactly as it appears on the package.
Should You Search Only International Class 34?
No.
Class 34 is the principal class for tobacco, cigarettes, cigars, electronic cigarettes, oral vaporizers for smokers, smokers’ articles, and matches under the current Nice Classification.
But trademark conflicts are not limited to marks appearing within the same International Class.
The USPTO evaluates whether goods and services are commercially related, not merely whether their class numbers match.
For a cigar brand, potentially relevant searches could extend to tobacco retail services, cigar lounge services, apparel, accessories, or other categories depending on how consumers encounter the brand.
For a vape company, related searches may include Class 9 batteries and chargers, Class 35 retail services, and other categories connected with the planned business.
Class 34 should therefore be a starting point, not an artificial boundary.
Why Can Different Trademark Classes Still Create a Conflict?
International Classes are administrative categories.
They help organize trademark applications and registrations, but they do not determine likelihood of confusion by themselves.
Consumers do not shop according to Nice Classification numbers.
A consumer may encounter an electronic cigarette, replacement cartridge, battery, retail-store service, and branded apparel through one company and one website even though those offerings fall within different trademark classes.
Similarly, a cigar company may operate a retail business and lounge while selling its own cigars and accessories.
If consumers would reasonably believe products or services originate from the same source, the fact that they occupy different classes does not automatically prevent a conflict.
Should a Cigar Brand Search Tobacco Retailers and Cigar Lounges?
Potentially, yes.
A cigar company should consider the commercial environment in which consumers will encounter its brand.
A similar mark used by a tobacconist, cigar retailer, private club, or lounge may deserve review even if the other party is not manufacturing cigars under that mark.
The relevant question is whether consumers could believe the respective businesses are affiliated or originate from a common source.
A successful cigar manufacturer might reasonably expand into retail or hospitality. A cigar lounge may sell branded products. Those marketplace relationships can influence how consumers perceive similar trademarks.
Search scope should therefore reflect actual industry practices.
Should a Vape Brand Search Retail Vape Shops?
Yes, when those services are commercially relevant.
A product mark and a retail-service mark can create conflicts when consumers are likely to associate them.
Suppose a vape manufacturer proposes a brand that is highly similar to the name of an existing national vape retailer.
Even if the retailer does not manufacture the exact device, consumers might believe the product is the retailer’s private-label brand or that the businesses are affiliated.
A meaningful clearance analysis therefore examines potentially related services as well as physical goods.
Should Vape Companies Search Class 9 Too?
Often.
The current 2026 Nice Classification places electronic cigarettes and oral vaporizers for smokers in Class 34 but expressly excludes batteries and chargers for electronic cigarettes, which fall in Class 9.
A vape company planning to use one house mark across devices, chargers, and batteries should therefore consider the broader ecosystem during clearance.
A similar earlier mark for related electronic accessories may become relevant even if the company’s core product is filed in Class 34.
This is another reason a search limited to the expected filing class can be incomplete.
Should You Search Pending Trademark Applications?
Yes.
A pending application can become highly important even though it has not yet matured into a registration.
The USPTO recommends searching both federally registered trademarks and pending applications before filing.
An earlier-filed pending application may eventually register and create an obstacle for a later applicant.
A company should therefore examine the filing date, owner, goods and services, status, and prosecution history of potentially relevant applications rather than focusing only on issued registrations.
For a rapidly developing industry, pending applications can also reveal emerging brands that have not yet developed a large public presence.
Can an Abandoned Trademark Application Still Matter?
Yes.
A dead or abandoned federal record generally will not itself operate like an active registration, but the underlying business may still have trademark rights based on continued use.
The USPTO expressly recommends searching common-law use because federal databases do not contain every trademark operating in the United States. Earlier unregistered use can affect the rights available to a later federal applicant.
Accordingly, a relevant abandoned cigar or vape application should not automatically be dismissed.
The former applicant may still sell products, operate a website, maintain retailer relationships, or use the trademark regionally.
The business may have abandoned the federal filing rather than the brand.
Marketplace investigation is therefore necessary.
What Are Common-Law Trademark Rights?
Common-law trademark rights can arise through actual use of a mark even without a federal registration.
The USPTO specifically recommends internet searches for unregistered trademarks used with related goods or services because earlier common-law use can affect the scope of rights obtained through a later federal registration.
This is particularly important in the cigar industry.
Smaller cigar labels, boutique manufacturers, regional tobacconists, local lounges, and specialty retailers may build meaningful goodwill without maintaining extensive federal trademark portfolios.
The same concern can arise with smaller vape businesses.
A federal database search may therefore show no obvious conflict while the marketplace reveals a longstanding user of a highly similar name.
Where Should a Cigar Brand Search for Common-Law Use?
A cigar clearance search should examine the places where cigar consumers and the trade encounter brands.
This can include general search engines, cigar retailers, manufacturer websites, online tobacconists, cigar publications, industry directories, distributor catalogs, social media, review sites, lounge websites, trade events, and marketplace listings.
The proposed mark should be searched with terms such as cigar, cigars, tobacco, smoking, lounge, humidor, and other commercially relevant wording.
Searches should also examine shortened versions and distinctive components of the mark.
The purpose is to determine whether another party is already using a similar designation in a way that may not appear prominently in the USPTO database.
Where Should a Vape Brand Search for Common-Law Use?
A vape brand should likewise search beyond federal registrations.
Relevant sources can include vape retailers, manufacturer sites, ecommerce stores, distributor catalogs, social media, product reviews, industry publications, and search-engine results.
The company’s search should also distinguish between product names and retailer names.
A proposed electronic cigarette brand may conflict with an existing product or with a related commercial service.
If the company expects international distribution, foreign trademark databases and marketplace activity may also deserve investigation.
Should the FDA Tobacco Products Database Be Part of a Vape Brand Search?
It can be a useful supplemental research source, but it is not a trademark clearance database.
FDA maintains information concerning tobacco products that have received marketing orders and explains that new tobacco products generally require the applicable marketing authorization before lawful U.S. marketing.
Reviewing FDA information may help a company identify product names and competitors operating within the regulated market.
However, FDA records should never replace USPTO, common-law, state, or marketplace trademark searching.
FDA marketing authorization and trademark ownership are different legal concepts.
A company appearing in an FDA database may or may not own federal trademark rights in the product name, and a trademark owner may have rights that are not revealed through FDA materials.
Does FDA Authorization Mean a Brand Name Is Available as a Trademark?
No.
FDA authorization concerns whether a regulated tobacco product can legally be marketed under the applicable federal tobacco framework.
The USPTO separately determines whether a trademark is eligible for federal registration.
FDA expressly states that a company must receive a written marketing order before legally marketing a qualifying new tobacco product in the United States, but that regulatory authorization does not resolve trademark ownership or likelihood of confusion.
A company can therefore face two separate problems.
The product could satisfy the regulatory pathway but use a brand name that infringes another party’s trademark.
Or the proposed mark could be distinctive and available from a trademark perspective while the underlying product cannot yet lawfully be marketed.
Both questions need to be addressed.
Why Is Lawful Use Relevant to Trademark Clearance?
Federal registration requires lawful use in commerce.
TMEP § 907 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.69 provide that when another Act of Congress regulates the sale or transportation of goods, the USPTO can inquire into compliance for the purpose of determining whether the claimed commerce is lawful. The TMEP states directly that trademark use in commerce must be lawful to support federal registration.
This is particularly significant for vape and other regulated tobacco products.
FDA states that new tobacco products generally cannot legally be introduced into the U.S. market without the applicable written marketing order.
A trademark search therefore answers whether another party’s rights create branding risk.
It does not answer whether the company’s intended commercial use will satisfy federal tobacco law.
Those analyses should be conducted in parallel.
Can You File an Intent-to-Use Application Before the Product Launch?
Potentially, yes.
Section 1(b) permits a trademark application based on a bona fide intention to use a mark in commerce before actual commercial use begins. Current TMEP § 1101 requires that intent to be genuine and held under circumstances showing good faith.
This can be useful for cigar or vape businesses conducting product development, packaging design, manufacturing preparation, distributor negotiations, or regulatory work before launch.
However, an intent-to-use application is not a way to avoid federal lawful-use requirements.
Current TMEP § 907 states that when an application record demonstrates that the mark or identified goods are unlawful, even a Section 1(b) application can be refused because the applicant cannot possess a bona fide intent to make lawful use of the mark on unlawful goods.
Accordingly, the trademark filing strategy should be coordinated with the regulatory status of the underlying products.
Should a Company Wait for FDA Authorization Before Conducting the Trademark Search?
Generally, no.
Trademark clearance can be valuable much earlier.
A company may spend significant time and money developing a tobacco product and navigating regulatory requirements. Waiting until the end of that process to discover that the proposed brand name conflicts with an earlier trademark can create avoidable costs.
The preferable sequence is often to evaluate trademark availability while the branding remains flexible.
That does not mean an early search guarantees the mark will remain risk-free indefinitely.
Trademark records and marketplace conditions continue changing.
If the regulatory process lasts for an extended period, refreshing the search before final commercial launch may be appropriate.
Should a Search Be Updated After a Long Regulatory Delay?
Potentially, yes.
A trademark search reflects the marketplace and federal records as they exist at a particular time.
New applications can be filed after the original search. New brands can enter the market. Businesses can expand into related categories.
If a cigar or vape product remains in development for a substantial period, the company may benefit from refreshing important portions of the search before committing to final packaging or launch.
This is particularly useful when the original clearance occurred years earlier.
An early search helps guide brand selection. A later update helps determine whether the risk landscape has changed.
Does Domain Name Availability Mean the Cigar or Vape Name Is Clear?
No.
Domain names and trademarks serve different legal functions.
A company may obtain an exact domain name while another business owns earlier trademark rights in a confusingly similar mark.
The same is true for social media handles.
Availability on Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, or another platform does not establish trademark availability.
Likewise, obtaining a state business registration under the proposed name does not amount to federal clearance.
Those checks can be useful from a branding and operational perspective, but they should supplement rather than replace trademark research.
Does an Available LLC Name Mean the Trademark Is Available?
No.
State business-entity registration generally concerns whether the entity name can be registered under state corporate rules.
Trademark law asks whether consumers could be confused by the company’s use of the mark with particular goods or services.
A cigar company can therefore successfully form an LLC under a particular name and later discover an earlier federal or common-law trademark used for cigars or related products.
Entity formation should not be treated as legal clearance of the brand.
Should Logos Be Searched Separately From Brand Names?
Potentially, yes.
A company may have a clear word mark but adopt a logo that resembles an earlier design mark.
The USPTO provides design-search tools specifically for searching design elements in registered and pending trademarks. Its current search resources include design search codes as one component of federal searching.
This can be particularly relevant for cigar brands because crests, shields, crowns, animals, initials, seals, and ornate emblems commonly appear on cigar bands and boxes.
Vape brands may similarly rely on distinctive symbols or stylized logos.
When the logo will serve as an important independent source identifier, design clearance should be considered in addition to word-mark searching.
Should Cigar Bands Be Reviewed Before Production?
Yes.
Cigar bands can combine several forms of branding.
The band may contain the house mark, a product-line name, an emblem, a geographic term, decorative artwork, or a secondary designation.
Each important source identifier should be evaluated before large quantities are printed.
A company might successfully clear the house mark but encounter a conflict with the separate name of a cigar line.
The same principle applies to boxes and other packaging.
The fact that several trademarks appear together does not mean clearance of one automatically clears the others.
Should Individual Cigar Line Names Be Searched Separately?
Yes, when they are intended to function as independent trademarks.
A cigar manufacturer might operate under one house brand while offering several separately named cigar lines or blends.
If consumers identify those names independently, each can create a separate trademark issue.
A new product-line name may conflict with another company’s mark even though the house mark has been used safely for years.
A growing cigar business should therefore incorporate trademark review into the naming process for major new lines.
Should Vape Device Names Be Searched Separately From the Company Name?
Yes.
A vape company may use one company or house brand while assigning separate names to devices, product systems, cartridges, or product families.
Those names can develop independent commercial significance.
Clearance of the corporate brand does not automatically establish that each device name is available.
This becomes particularly important when the product name appears more prominently than the company name in retailer listings or consumer discussions.
Can a Trademark Search Tell You With Certainty That a Name Is Safe?
No.
A trademark clearance search reduces risk. It does not eliminate all uncertainty.
The USPTO itself explains that clearance searches can be complex and recommends evaluating both whether marks are confusingly similar and whether their goods or services are related.
Common-law use can also be difficult to identify completely.
Some businesses have limited internet visibility. Marketplace conditions can change after the search. Likelihood of confusion also involves judgment rather than a mechanical formula.
A search should therefore produce a reasoned risk assessment rather than a guarantee that no dispute will ever occur.
What Happens if the Search Finds a Similar Cigar or Vape Trademark?
A similar result does not automatically mean the proposed mark must be abandoned.
The result must be evaluated in context.
Important considerations include the similarity of the marks, the nature of the respective goods and services, channels of trade, customer overlap, trademark strength, priority, marketplace use, and the federal status of the earlier mark.
Some search results will pose little practical concern.
Others may present substantial registration and infringement risk.
The value of a trademark search lies in distinguishing between those categories rather than simply generating a long list of records.
Should a Company Rebrand if the Search Finds a Serious Conflict?
Sometimes, especially when the brand has not yet launched.
A pre-launch conflict presents a strategic choice.
The company can compare the value of keeping the proposed name against the potential cost of an Office Action, opposition, cease-and-desist demand, infringement lawsuit, or later forced rebrand.
When an earlier party owns a strong trademark for highly related goods, selecting another name before commercial launch may be substantially less expensive than defending the brand later.
Other circumstances may justify further investigation, negotiation, consent, or a coexistence strategy.
The appropriate response depends on the particular conflict.
Can the USPTO Refuse the Application Even if the Search Looked Clear?
Yes.
The assigned examining attorney conducts an independent federal search during examination.
The USPTO may reach a different conclusion concerning the similarity of marks or relationship between goods and services.
The examining attorney’s search also focuses on federal trademark records. The applicant remains responsible for investigating broader marketplace and common-law risks.
This is why pre-launch clearance and USPTO examination serve different purposes.
The applicant searches before investing in the brand.
The USPTO later determines whether the application satisfies federal registration requirements.
What Is the Biggest Search Mistake Cigar and Vape Brands Make?
One of the most common mistakes is checking only for an exact Class 34 match.
That approach can miss phonetic variations, pending applications, relevant dead records, common-law brands, retail services, related goods in other classes, and important product-line names.
Another mistake is treating a domain name, social media handle, or LLC filing as proof that the trademark is available.
Cigar companies may also focus only on manufacturers and overlook lounges or retailers with potentially relevant rights.
Vape companies may search electronic cigarettes in Class 34 but ignore connected products in Class 9.
Finally, regulated-product businesses can spend substantial resources on product development before resolving whether the brand itself can be safely used.
When Is the Best Time to Conduct the Trademark Search?
The best time is generally after the company has developed a shortlist of serious brand candidates but before selecting one irreversibly.
Searching several finalists provides flexibility.
If one proposed mark presents substantial risk, the company can move to another candidate before expensive packaging and regulatory work are built around it.
Once a preferred mark passes appropriate clearance, the company can consider the correct filing strategy, including whether an intent-to-use application is appropriate.
For a cigar or vape company, clearance should ideally occur before the name becomes embedded throughout the business.
Should Trademark Clearance Be Part of the Regulatory Launch Process?
Yes.
Trademark and regulatory analysis should remain distinct, but the timelines should be coordinated.
A trademark search asks whether the branding conflicts with earlier trademark rights.
FDA analysis asks whether and under what pathway the underlying tobacco product can lawfully be marketed.
FDA currently states that a new tobacco product generally must receive the applicable written marketing order before legal U.S. marketing, and that unauthorized new products are subject to enforcement.
The USPTO separately requires lawful trademark use and can refuse applications where the record demonstrates that the goods or claimed commerce violate applicable federal law.
A strong launch process therefore makes sure the company is not solving one problem while ignoring the other.
How Should a Cigar or Vape Company Conduct Pre-Launch Trademark Clearance?
The process should begin by identifying every trademark expected to matter at launch.
That may include the house brand, individual cigar-line or vape-device names, major logos, and separately branded retail or hospitality services.
The company should then search federal registrations and pending applications for exact and confusingly similar marks, including variations in spelling, sound, meaning, and commercial impression. The search should cover the core Class 34 goods and commercially related categories rather than using class numbers as hard boundaries.
Next, the company should investigate common-law use through general internet research and sources specific to cigar, tobacco, and vape markets. Relevant abandoned federal records should be checked to determine whether the former applicant remains active.
Important logos should receive separate design review.
If the company expects international distribution, appropriate foreign trademark searching should also occur before worldwide branding commitments are made.
The search results should then be analyzed according to actual likelihood-of-confusion risk rather than simply counting matches.
Finally, the company should coordinate its trademark filing with the regulatory status of the underlying products. An intent-to-use filing can allow a qualifying brand to begin the federal application process before launch when there is a bona fide intention to use the mark, but it does not excuse federal lawful-use requirements or FDA marketing rules applicable to tobacco products.
For cigar and vape companies, that sequence can prevent a difficult outcome: successfully developing a regulated product only to discover that the brand chosen for it cannot safely be registered or used.
Cohn Legal, PLLC advises cigar, tobacco, vape, and other consumer-product businesses on trademark clearance, federal registration, Class 34 strategy, brand ownership, product-line protection, licensing, TTAB proceedings, and enforcement. Cohn Legal’s tobacco, cigar, and vape practice similarly emphasizes conducting clearance before companies commit substantial resources to names, logos, and packaging.
Primary Sources and Authorities
The USPTO’s Comprehensive Clearance Search for Similar Trademarks guidance recommends searching federal registrations and applications, common-law use, state sources, domain information, and other relevant databases before filing. The USPTO warns that early searching can help avoid likelihood-of-confusion refusals, TTAB proceedings, and infringement litigation.
USPTO Federal Trademark Searching guidance explains that clearance requires analyzing both whether trademarks are confusingly similar and whether the associated goods or services are related. Marks may conflict based on similarities in appearance, pronunciation, meaning, or overall commercial impression.
USPTO Likelihood of Confusion guidance confirms that marks do not have to be identical and identifies likelihood of confusion as one of the most common reasons federal trademark applications are refused.
The USPTO currently applies the Nice Classification, Thirteenth Edition, version 2026, effective January 1, 2026. Class 34 covers tobacco and tobacco substitutes, cigarettes and cigars, electronic cigarettes and oral vaporizers for smokers, smokers’ articles, and matches. Batteries and chargers for electronic cigarettes are expressly excluded from Class 34 and classified in Class 9.
TMEP § 907 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.69 provide that use relied upon for federal trademark registration must be lawful. When the sale or transportation of goods is regulated under another Act of Congress, the USPTO may inquire into compliance for purposes of determining whether the claimed commerce is lawful.
TMEP § 1101 governs the bona fide intent requirement for Section 1(b) applications. The applicant must possess a genuine good-faith intention to use the trademark in commerce. Registration cannot issue under a Section 1(b) basis until an acceptable allegation of actual use is later submitted.
Current TMEP guidance further provides that when the record demonstrates that the mark or identified goods are unlawful, a refusal can apply even to non-use-based applications because the applicant cannot possess a bona fide intention to make lawful use of the mark.
FDA currently states that, subject to the applicable statutory framework, a company seeking to legally market a new tobacco product in the United States generally must obtain the applicable written marketing order. FDA currently recognizes the PMTA, Substantial Equivalence, and Exemption from Substantial Equivalence pathways where applicable.
Author: Abraham Cohn, U.S. trademark attorney and founder of Cohn Legal, PLLC. Cohn Legal advises cigar, tobacco, vape, consumer-product, and regulated-product companies on trademark searches, federal registration, lawful-use issues, Class 34 protection, product-line expansion, licensing, TTAB proceedings, infringement, and enforcement.