MIND MARKER - The LOCA Blueprint (Redesign)

The LOCA™ Blueprint: How We Turn Your Refusal into a Winning Case

The LOCA™ isn't confusing jargon—it's the engine for our clear, predictable, three-step process. Here’s how it works for you.

1

Your Clear 3-Step Blueprint

The LOCA™ is the blueprint we use to take your complex rejection and simplify it into a clear, evidence-based argument. It’s what drives our predictable three-step process: Free Strategy Call → LOCA™ Report → Expert Response & Filing.

2

The Precise Fix For Your Refusal

You’re not just getting an analysis; you're getting a definitive answer to your biggest problem: How do I stop this confusion refusal from killing my brand? The LOCA™ is the precise tool for your exact, specialized problem.

3

Get $1,000+ in Value, Not Hourly Bills

Our analysis applies a rigor that would take a traditional law firm 15–20 hours ($1,000+ value) to recreate. You get a fully vetted strategy for a fraction of that cost, saving you the anxiety, the effort, and thousands in legal fees.

4

A True "Done For You" Service

The LOCA™ is integrated into our "done for you" packages. You give us the facts on a quick call, we do the work, you approve the draft, and we handle the full case management and filing. Hands-off for you, maximum results from us.

5

Data-Backed Evidence, Not Boilerplate

We don't guess. The LOCA™ is a disciplined, proprietary system built on a 150-factor checklist that stress-tests your case against hundreds of real TTAB precedents. This is why we can provide a highly accurate probability of success—often 80–90%.

6

Know Your Odds & Share The Risk

The LOCA™ gives you a high-probability estimate so you know where you stand. And with SuccessPay, you pay the largest fee *only* if the response succeeds in getting your mark approved. We share the risk with you.

7

Beat the Hard USPTO Deadline

Every moment you delay is a moment closer to the hard USPTO deadline. Missing it means your application is dead. The LOCA™ is the critical first step in building your strategic defense. We must start this process to beat the clock.

Build My Winning Case
MIND MARKER - LOCA Preview (Matrix Design)

LOCA™ Preview: Factor 1 - Similarity of the Marks

This is the foundation of the entire test. To show our work, here is a preview of the 15 sub-components we analyze for this *single* factor.

Sub-component
Heuristic Question
Why We Ask This Question
1. Levenshtein distance
How similar are the literal spellings of the marks?
This is a foundational test of textual similarity. Even a small difference (like "Kwick" vs. "Quick") can be overlooked by consumers.
2. Logo cosine similarity
Visually, how similar are the logos when analyzed by an AI model?
We use advanced tools to objectively measure the visual overlap of two logos, providing a data-driven measure of how close they appear.
3. Double-Metaphone code
How phonetically similar are the marks when their core sounds are coded?
This analyzes how marks sound when spoken. Marks spelled differently can sound identical (e.g., "Kool" and "Cool"), which is crucial for confusion risk.
4. Dominant element overlap
What percentage of the most prominent visual or textual elements are shared?
We identify the most memorable part of each mark. If this key feature is shared, the risk of confusion is extremely high.
5. Shared prefix/suffix
How much do the marks overlap in their key phonetic syllables?
This assesses whether the marks share common beginnings or endings (e.g., "Mega-Corp" and "Mega-Tools"), increasing the chance of misremembering.
6. Colour-palette ΔE
How perceptually similar are the color palettes?
We use a scientific formula (Delta E) to objectively measure if two color schemes are perceptually similar enough to cause confusion.
7. Typeface class match
How similar are the fonts used in the marks?
If two brands use a very similar font style (e.g., a handwritten script), it contributes to an overall similar commercial impression.
8. Structure/word order
To what degree do the marks share a similar, unusual structure?
This looks at the arrangement of words. Two marks with an unconventional, shared structure (e.g., "Xtreme 5-Z" and "Supreme 5-B") are more confusing.
9. Translation equivalence
To what degree do the marks translate to the same meaning?
If one mark is "Swift Foot" and the other is the Italian "Piede Veloce," consumers familiar with both languages may be confused because the *idea* is identical.
10. USPTO Design Code overlap
How much do the logos' core design elements overlap based on classification codes?
This uses government classification data for design elements (e.g., a circle, an eagle) to objectively determine the degree of overlap.
11. Overall Commercial Impression
Holistically, how similar is the overall look and feel?
After analyzing the parts, we assess the total effect. Does a consumer, encountering the marks quickly, walk away with the same impression?
12. Rhythm and Cadence
When spoken, do the marks have a similar number of syllables and rhythm?
This is the aural equivalent of visual structure. Two marks with the same beat (e.g., "El-e-phant" and "Tel-e-gram") have a higher chance of being confused.
13. Visual Weight/Balance
How similar is the distribution and balance of visual elements?
This determines if the marks draw the eye in a similar way (e.g., heavy text on the left, small graphic on the right).
14. Composite or Unitary
If at least one mark is unitary, is it a new, single word distinct from its elements?
A unique, coined word ("unitary" mark) receives stronger protection. This component assesses how strong and protectable the name itself is.
15. Slogan/Tagline Similarity
How similar are the primary taglines used with the marks?
If the marks are slightly different but both use a similar slogan (e.g., "Built to Last"), the shared context can drive up the likelihood of confusion.
Apply This Rigor to My Case