Phase B · Canonical intake buildout

Trademark intake architecture

Canonical intake, built out into concrete steps, fields, branches, and flags.

This page turns Phase B into a reviewable build artifact. It shows the real intake structure that should sit between the public funnel and the future TCM, including what is required, what branches conditionally, and which answers should trigger review flags or pricing-lane outputs.

Canonical steps

Review flags

Recommendation outputs

Decision questions for Ryan

Step 1

Welcome + protection type

Orient the client, reduce anxiety, and identify the broad mark type before deeper intake begins.

2 fields

• Keep copy plain-English and reassuring.

• This step should feel fast and confidence-building for ad traffic.

What would you like to protect?

welcome.protectionType

Single choiceRequired

Brand nameLogoName and logoNot sure yet

Is this for a U.S. trademark application?

welcome.usApplicationIntent

Single choiceRequired

YesProbably yes, but I have questionsNot sure

Step 2

Owner / applicant

Identify the legal owner correctly and surface ownership complexity early.

11 fields

• If the filer is acting for an organization, collect authorized representative details and a power of attorney document authorizing representation.

Who should legally own this trademark?

owner.ownerType

Single choiceRequired

Me personallyMy LLCMy corporationMy partnershipAnother business or nonprofitNot sure

Legal owner name

owner.legalName

Short textRequired

Different DBA or brand name, if any

owner.dbaName

Short textOptional

State or country of organization

owner.stateOrCountryOfOrganization

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on owner.ownerType (Show for business owners instead of individual citizenship.)

Country of citizenship

owner.citizenship

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on owner.ownerType = Me personally

Are there multiple owners?

owner.hasMultipleOwners

Single choiceRequired

YesNo

Authorized representative name

owner.authorizedRepresentativeName

Short textOptional

Use when the person filling out the intake is authorized to act for the owner organization.

Authorized representative title or role

owner.authorizedRepresentativeTitle

Short textOptional

Additional owner entries

owner.additionalOwners

Generated / repeating summaryOptionalRepeatable

For now, capture detailed additional-owner information plus authorized-representative context when someone is signing on behalf of the organization.

Branching

• depends on owner.hasMultipleOwners = Yes

Review flags

ownershipComplexity

Is there anything unusual about the ownership?

owner.unusualOwnership

Single choiceRequired

YesNo

Review flags

ownershipComplexityneedsAttorneyReview

Explain the ownership issue

owner.unusualOwnershipExplanation

Long textRequired

Branching

• depends on owner.unusualOwnership = Yes

Step 3

Contact + address

Capture the filer/contact person and the mailing details needed for downstream prep.

5 fields

Best contact name

contact.contactName

Short textRequired

Best email

contact.email

EmailRequired

Best phone number

contact.phone

PhoneRequired

Your role in relation to the owner

contact.role

DropdownOptional

OwnerEmployeeAssistantAttorneyOther

Mailing address

owner.mailingAddress

Address blockRequired

Collect line 1, line 2, city, state/province, postal code, and country.

Step 4

Mark details

Capture what the mark is and identify any special statements needed later.

11 fields

• Word mark protects the wording itself. Design/logo mark protects the visual presentation.

What are you trying to protect?

mark.markFormat

Single choiceRequired

Just the words or nameJust the logo or designA logo that includes wordsNot sure

Enter the exact wording

mark.exactWording

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on mark.markFormat (Show whenever wording is part of the mark.)

Briefly describe the logo or design

mark.designDescription

Long textRequired

Branching

• depends on mark.markFormat (Show for design or combined marks.)

Review flags

markDescriptionNeeded

Does the mark use color you want to claim?

mark.colorClaimed

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Branching

• depends on mark.markFormat (Show for design or combined marks.)

Color description

mark.colorDescription

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on mark.colorClaimed = Yes

Does the mark include non-English wording?

mark.hasNonEnglishWording

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Review flags

translationReviewNeeded

What does it mean?

mark.translationText

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on mark.hasNonEnglishWording = Yes

Does the mark use a different alphabet or unusual script?

mark.hasTransliterationIssue

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Review flags

translationReviewNeeded

Transliteration details

mark.transliterationText

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on mark.hasTransliterationIssue = Yes

Does the mark include a person’s name, portrait, or signature?

mark.hasPersonNamePortraitSignature

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Review flags

needsAttorneyReview

Upload logo or design file

uploads.logoFiles

File uploadOptional

Branching

• depends on mark.markFormat (Show for design or combined marks.)

Step 5

Goods / services

Collect a lighter first-pass description of goods and services, with the eventual build moving toward USPTO-style classes and description structure.

11 fields

• Ryan selected a lighter first-pass intake here.

• The eventual implementation should still follow the structure of USPTO classes and descriptions rather than staying purely freeform forever.

• Preferred direction: use a guided plain-English narrowing flow that helps the client land on likely class families and identifications before final internal selection.

• Taxonomy direction: start with common category families and subcategories plus Other, then expand as real intake patterns emerge.

In plain English, what does your business do?

goodsServices.businessDescription

Long textRequired

Which best fits what you offer?

goodsServices.offerType

Single choiceRequired

Products or goodsServicesBothNot sure

Is this a good or a service?

goodsServices.offerKind

Single choiceRequired

GoodServiceBothNot sure

What type of good or service is it?

goodsServices.categoryFamily

DropdownRequired

Start with a curated set of the most common plain-English families, plus an Other option, and expand the taxonomy over time.

More specific category

goodsServices.subcategory

DropdownRequired

Use a hybrid taxonomy: common narrower categories first, plus Other / not sure, with room to expand over time.

Primary product or service #1

goodsServices.primaryOfferingOne

Short textRequired

Primary product or service #2

goodsServices.primaryOfferingTwo

Short textOptional

Closest USPTO class or description, if known

goodsServices.usptoClassHint

Short textOptional

Future implementation should evolve toward USPTO class-aligned selection and description support, using the guided answers to narrow likely classes and IDs.

Review flags

goodsServicesNeedsClassificationHelplikelyMultipleClasses

Suggested class family candidates

goodsServices.internalSuggestedClassFamily

Generated / repeating summaryOptional

System-generated shortlist such as Class 29, 30, 31, 32, or 33 based on the guided answers.

Suggested identification candidate

goodsServices.internalSuggestedIdentification

Generated / repeating summaryOptional

System-generated likely USPTO identification candidate for internal review, such as 030-935 Toaster Pastries.

Geographic market

goodsServices.geographicMarket

Single choiceRequired

U.S. onlyInternationalBothNot sure

Step 6

Current use facts

Determine likely use in commerce versus intent to use without asking the client to know legal terminology.

9 fields

• Ask factual questions first, infer filing basis later.

Are you already selling products or providing services under this brand?

useFacts.currentlySellingOrProviding

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Where can customers already see the brand?

useFacts.customerFacingLocations

Multi-selectRequired

Product packagingLabels or tagsWebsite sales pageWebsite service pageMenuBrochureApp screenAdvertising onlyNot live yet

Have real customers already bought the product or hired the service under this brand?

useFacts.realCustomersAlreadyBought

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Can people in more than one state buy from you or hire you under this brand?

useFacts.interstateAvailability

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

What evidence do you already have showing current use?

useFacts.evidenceAvailable

Multi-selectRequired

Product photoLabel or tagWebsite screenshotMenuBrochureApp screenNone yet

First use anywhere date

useFacts.firstUseAnywhereDate

DateOptional

Ask for the best known date, and allow approximate or unknown answers at intake stage.

Branching

• depends on useFacts.currentlySellingOrProviding = Yes

First use in commerce date

useFacts.firstUseInCommerceDate

DateOptional

Ask for the best known date, and allow approximate or unknown answers at intake stage.

Branching

• depends on useFacts.currentlySellingOrProviding = Yes

Do you have a specimen or comparable proof of use ready?

useFacts.specimenAvailable

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Branching

• depends on useFacts.currentlySellingOrProviding = Yes

Review flags

specimenMissingForUseClaim

If not live yet, when do you expect to launch?

useFacts.expectedLaunchTiming

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on useFacts.currentlySellingOrProviding = No

Step 7

Foreign filing / registration

Determine whether a foreign-based filing path or attorney review lane is needed while keeping foreign applicants in the shared intake flow.

8 fields

• Foreign matters stay in the same intake, but should receive a meaningfully different recommendation and handoff when triggered.

Have you already filed for this trademark in another country?

foreignBasis.foreignApplicationExists

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Review flags

foreignBasisReviewNeededneedsAttorneyReview

Do you already have a registration in another country?

foreignBasis.foreignRegistrationExists

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Review flags

foreignBasisReviewNeededneedsAttorneyReview

Which country?

foreignBasis.country

Short textRequired

Branching

• depends on foreignBasis.foreignApplicationExists = Yes

• depends on foreignBasis.foreignRegistrationExists = Yes

Foreign application number

foreignBasis.applicationNumber

Short textOptional

Foreign filing date

foreignBasis.applicationDate

DateOptional

Foreign registration number

foreignBasis.registrationNumber

Short textOptional

Foreign registration date

foreignBasis.registrationDate

DateOptional

Do you want us to review whether a foreign filing path applies?

foreignBasis.reviewForeignPath

Single choiceOptional

YesNo

Step 8

Legal edge cases

Capture issues that often matter later in drafting and review even when the basic intake looks simple.

6 fields

• This section should feel softer or more advanced in the UI rather than confrontational for ad traffic.

Does the mark include wording that directly describes the product or service?

legalReview.descriptiveTermsPresent

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Review flags

disclaimerReviewNeeded

Do you already own related registrations or pending applications?

legalReview.relatedRegistrationsOrApplications

Single choiceRequired

YesNo

Related registration or application numbers

legalReview.relatedNumbers

Short textOptionalRepeatable

Branching

• depends on legalReview.relatedRegistrationsOrApplications = Yes

Are you aware of anyone else using something similar?

legalReview.awareOfSimilarUsers

Single choiceRequired

YesNoNot sure

Has anyone challenged your use or sent a complaint?

legalReview.receivedChallengeOrComplaint

Single choiceRequired

YesNo

Review flags

needsAttorneyReview

Anything else unusual we should know before review?

legalReview.additionalRiskNotes

Long textOptional

Step 9

Uploads

Collect the files needed for review, classification support, and eventual application prep.

6 fields

• Uploads are strongly encouraged but should remain optional in the first build.

Upload logo or design file

uploads.logoFiles

File uploadOptional

Upload specimen or use evidence

uploads.specimenFiles

File uploadOptional

Upload foreign filing or registration documents

uploads.foreignDocs

File uploadOptional

Upload ownership documents

uploads.ownershipDocs

File uploadOptional

Upload power of attorney document

uploads.powerOfAttorney

File uploadOptional

Use when an authorized representative is acting on behalf of the owner organization.

Upload miscellaneous supporting files

uploads.miscFiles

File uploadOptional

Step 10

Review + recommendation

Summarize the intake, show the likely filing path, and generate the service-lane recommendation for the next step.

8 fields

• This step should be human-readable for the client and structured enough for the future TCM.

• Pricing should appear only after the recommendation screen, not earlier in the funnel.

Owner summary

review.ownerSummary

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Mark summary

review.markSummary

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Goods and services summary

review.goodsServicesSummary

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Current-use summary

review.currentUseSummary

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Foreign filing summary

review.foreignBasisSummary

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Likely filing path recommendation

recommendation.likelyFilingPath

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Review flags

needsAttorneyReviewforeignBasisReviewNeededspecimenMissingForUseClaim

Recommended service lane

recommendation.serviceLane

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Pricing visibility output

recommendation.pricingVisibility

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Step 11

Handoff / save / consultation

Provide a clear next action while preserving the intake record for downstream review and future TCM ingestion.

3 fields

• Save-and-finish-later is desired, but not required for the first working version.

Continue to consultation

handoff.continueToConsultation

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Save and finish later

handoff.saveAndFinishLater

Generated / repeating summaryRequired

Request attorney review

handoff.requestAttorneyReview

Generated / repeating summaryOptional

Decision questions to answer before implementation

Question 1

When should pricing appear in the intake flow?

This controls whether the funnel feels more consultative or more self-serve, and changes the recommendation screen design.

A. After the landing page but before the detailed intake

Adds early transparency, but may reduce consult-first momentum.

B. Only after the recommendation screen

Best matches consult-first positioning and service-lane triage.

Selected

C. Show a range early, then precise lane later

Balanced option with softer sticker shock.

Chosen: pricing appears only after the recommendation screen.

Recommended leaning: B or C are the strongest fits for the direction you approved.

Question 2

Should foreign applicants stay in the same intake flow or branch earlier?

This changes how much of the intake can stay shared and when attorney-review cues appear.

A. Keep them in the same flow, branch only when foreign answers appear

Simplest UX and easiest to maintain.

B. Split them into a dedicated foreign review lane as soon as foreign filing is detected

Cleaner internal routing for complex matters.

C. Keep shared intake, but change the recommendation/handoff aggressively for foreign matters

Good middle ground.

Selected

Chosen: keep a shared intake, but route foreign matters to a meaningfully different recommendation and handoff.

Recommended leaning: C is probably the best balance unless you want a visibly separate foreign product lane.

Question 3

How much detail should we collect for multiple owners during intake?

More detail up front reduces follow-up later, but increases intake friction for edge cases.

A. Collect full owner details for every additional owner during intake

Most complete, but heavier UX.

B. Collect only legal name and type for additional owners, fill in the rest later

Faster intake, more internal follow-up.

C. Collect a short summary first, then open a detailed sub-step only if needed

Best adaptive UX.

Resolved custom direction: collect authorized representative details and a power of attorney document when someone is acting on behalf of the organization.

Recommended leaning: C feels strongest for this funnel.

Question 4

How deep should the goods/services section go on first pass?

This is one of the biggest tradeoffs between conversion and filing readiness.

A. One plain-English business description plus 1 to 2 example offerings

Lightest intake, more follow-up later.

B. Require a repeatable offering list with descriptions and sold-now status

Best filing-prep quality, moderate effort.

C. Start light, then ask for more only if multiple classes or ambiguity appear

Adaptive and likely best for conversion.

Refined direction: use a guided plain-English funnel, for example good/service → broad family → narrower category → freeform description, then internally map to likely USPTO classes and identification candidates.

Recommended leaning: C is my default recommendation, with B for obviously serious/legal-intake traffic.

Question 5

When should first-use dates be required?

Dates are valuable, but forcing them too early can slow users who are unsure.

A. Require them immediately whenever the user says the mark is already live

Most complete intake.

B. Ask for them, but allow unknown / approximate answers at intake stage

Reduces abandonment while keeping the topic in scope.

Selected

C. Do not ask for dates until after review or consultation

Fastest UX, weakest filing-prep readiness.

Chosen: ask for dates, but allow approximate or unknown answers at intake stage.

Recommended leaning: B is probably the right compromise.

Question 6

How hard should we push uploads during intake?

Uploads improve review quality, but mandatory file collection can hurt completion rates.

A. Make relevant uploads required before submission

Higher-quality files, lower completion rate.

B. Strongly encourage uploads, but allow submission without them

Better conversion, still useful intake.

Selected

C. Skip uploads entirely at intake and request them later

Fastest intake, more manual follow-up.

Chosen: uploads are encouraged, not required.

Recommended leaning: B is the best default unless a specific lane requires hard evidence up front.

Question 7

How visible should legal-risk questions be to the client?

More visible legal questions can feel serious and careful, but can also spook ad traffic.

A. Keep them as a normal intake step

Most transparent and complete.

B. Collapse them behind optional or advanced wording

Softer UX, still collects edge cases.

Selected

C. Collect only the biggest red flags and leave the rest for internal follow-up

Higher conversion, less complete intake.

Chosen: legal-risk questions should feel softer or more advanced in the UI.

Recommended leaning: B probably fits the approved visual and tone best.

Question 8

How important is save-and-finish-later in the first build?

This changes both backend persistence and how much friction we can tolerate in the full intake.

A. Critical in v1 of the intake app

We should design persistence from the start.

B. Nice to have, but not required for the first working version

Lets us ship sooner.

Selected

C. Not needed if the intake stays short enough

Simplifies the first build heavily.

Chosen: save-and-finish-later is nice to have, not required for the first working version.

Recommended leaning: If the flow stays this thorough, A or B. If you want rapid implementation first, B.