IP Law Daily, PATENT NEWS: USPTO terminates hundreds of trademark proceedings, sanctions Pinnacle filing service, (Jan 12, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has terminated hundreds of proceedings and issued sanctions after an investigation allegedly found a coordinated scheme to deceive the federal agency.

On January 8, 2026, the USPTO issued a Final Order for Sanctions against the firm Pinnacle Trademark and unnamed individuals doing business under that firm name (collectively, “Pinnacle”). The order alleged that Pinnacle submitted more than 510 trademark applications and repeatedly provided false or misleading information as part of those applications.

The order alleged that Pinnacle representatives provided false signature information and made record of email addresses under their own control to intercept USPTO correspondence. The order further alleged that Pinnacle’s websites suggested that the firm offered trademark services provided by attorneys, but that no attorney information appeared on their webpages.

“Respondents were aware of the impropriety of their conduct in filing these applications, and they devised methods to conceal their involvement and advance submissions for an improper purpose, including to disguise that Respondents were representing trademark applicants before the USPTO without the involvement of U.S.-licensed attorneys,” the order read.

USPTO rules require that only attorneys admitted to practice before the bar of the highest court of a U.S. state or jurisdiction may practice before the agency in trademark matters on behalf of others. A limited exception, not applicable here, exists for Canadian attorneys and agents who have been reciprocally recognized by the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.

In determining appropriate sanctions, the USPTO said it considers multiple factors, including whether a party responds to a show cause order; whether the conduct was willful or negligent; whether the conduct was part of a pattern of activity or isolated event; whether the conduct infects the entire record or is limited to a single submission; whether the conduct was intended to injure a party; what effect, if any, the conduct has on the USPTO; and what is needed to deter similar conduct by others.

The USPTO concluded that the most serious sanctions were warranted. The order noted that Pinnacle engaged in a “widespread and coordinated pattern of activity intended to conceal their involvement in trademark matters and circumvent USPTO Rules.” Further, Pinnacle did not respond to the show cause order and made no effort to rebut the allegations. Some applicants had submitted arguments why the USPTO should remove their applications from the administrative show cause proceeding, which the agency denied, citing Pinnacle’s impropriety.

“The evidence demonstrates that Respondents’ conduct infects the entirety of the trademark proceeding because all initial application forms and other trademark submissions made through USPTO.gov accounts registered to or used by Respondents were filed in violation of multiple USPTO Rules,” the order read.

The order listed six sanctions against Pinnacle that took immediate effect, including a permanent ban on submitting trademark-related documents, striking all trademark-related documents that Pinnacle submitted, deactivating USPTO accounts related to Pinnacle, and terminating proceedings initiated by Pinnacle.

The order was signed by Amy P. Cotton, deputy commissioner for trademark examination policy, on delegation of authority by John A. Squires, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.

USPTO Final Order for Sanctions, January 8, 2026.

News: Patent USPTO