Examiner intelligence built for trademark attorneys
You’ve been assigned an examiner. Here’s what to expect.
Know your examiner's refusal rate
or open a real examiner’s profile, fully unlocked →
944 active examiners · 2.2M substantive office actions · every figure from the public record
Jane Doe
Refusal mix — independent rates, an app can draw more than one
What to expect — Refuses more than most and rarely backs down at initial — but on §2(d) Finals they've been moved 31% of the time, and narrowing the goods helps most.
Will I draw a refusal?
Start with the odds. This examiner refuses more often than most — and §2(d) likelihood-of-confusion is where it concentrates.
How hard is the path?
One number against the active fleet — how hard this examiner is to move, not just how often they refuse. An 8 means refusals tend to stick and they rarely back down.
If I push past Final, do they relent?
Stubborn at initial isn't the whole story. Past the Final, this examiner has been moved — and how you move them is specific.
What reg are they citing — and does it give way?
The sharpest read: the specific registrations behind their §2(d)s, ranked by whether applicants have gotten past them — and the move that worked.
Jane Doe
Will I draw a refusal?
Start with the odds. This examiner refuses more often than most — and §2(d) likelihood-of-confusion is where it concentrates.
Refusal mix — independent rates, an app can draw more than one
How hard is the path?
One number against the active fleet — how hard this examiner is to move, not just how often they refuse. An 8 means refusals tend to stick and they rarely back down.
More difficult than ~70% of active examiners.
If I push past Final, do they relent?
Stubborn at initial isn't the whole story. Past the Final, this examiner has been moved — and how you move them is specific.
What reg are they citing — and does it give way?
The sharpest read: the specific registrations behind their §2(d)s, ranked by whether applicants have gotten past them — and the move that worked.
The §2(d) detail report ranks every cited reg on this docket
What to expect — Refuses more than most and rarely backs down at initial — but on §2(d) Finals they've been moved 31% of the time, and narrowing the goods helps most.
The gap
A case list isn't a strategy.
Other tools give you an examiner's registration rate and a list of cases. CrystalMark tells you whether your client can still reach publication— and the move that's actually worked.
The margin
Stop quoting responses blind.
A substantive office-action response is a flat quote — and the examiner decides whether it stays one round or becomes three. On a flat fee, that variance comes out of your margin, not the client's.
Big shops read the refusal before they quote. CrystalMark lets you read the examiner too — how often their refusals hold per response round, how many rounds a refused application runs, how they score against the active fleet. Price the fight like you've fought this examiner before. Statistically, you have.
What you get
The whole behavioral read,
before you respond.
Lead with breadth. Before you draft a response, read how this examiner refuses, how hard they push, and where they fold — every rate against the active fleet, every figure with its sample size.
Representative example — illustrative figures, not a real examiner.
Rates are independent — an application can draw a §2(d) anda descriptiveness refusal at once, so these don't sum to 100%. The fingerprint is what they refuse on, not a single pie.
More difficult than ~70% of active examiners.
Rarely backs down once a §2(d) is on the table — that staying power, not the 58% raw refusal rate (+29pp vs fleet), is what difficulty keys on.
Driven by how often a refusal sticks — maintained, folded, or reversed — and the rounds it takes, not just how often they refuse.
Rarely folds at the initial action — they make you earn the publication.
First office action 3.2 mo · 2.1 rounds — queue-bound timing, shown as fine print, not a selling point.
§2(d) refusal rate up ~6pp over the last three years — this examiner is getting tougher, not softer.
The window matters: a five-year average would hide the recent move.
The edge · §2(d)
Stubborn at initial.
Movable at Final — if you know the move.
The question the whole field leaves unanswered: once you're past the Final, will this examiner ever back down — and do you need a consent, or can you get there without one?
of their §2(d) Finals were withdrawn on reconsideration.
Will they move? Yes — about a third of the time, even after a Final.
were withdrawn without needing a coexistence agreement.
Do you need a consent? Not always — nearly one in five came down without one.
were withdrawn when the goods were voluntarily narrowed.
Does narrowing help here? Yes — 41% vs a 31% baseline (n=34). Cut the overlap.
Representative example · recent window · n = 142. Framed at the application level — we don't fabricate per-move success bars.
The appeal read
What happens if you appeal.
Everyone quotes the same folklore number — nine appeals in ten, affirmed. That number counts only the appeals that reached a decision. Counted from the notice of appeal, the record says something else entirely.
the folklore: §2(d) refusals affirmed on appeal.
True — but only of appeals the Board actually decided.
of resolved appeals ever reach a Board merits decision.
The other 85% resolve before the Board rules on anything.
of resolved appeals end with the refusal coming off.
Usually the examiner folding — at a median 2 months, vs ~10 to a decision.
The 90% stat is survivorship bias — it counts only the fights examiners chose to finish. Filed and pressed, the appeal is a lever, not a last resort. Fleet-wide figures computed from 87,494 resolved ex parte appeals in the public TTAB record.
Then the per-examiner read — when applicants took this examiner to the Board, how did it end? Representative example below — illustrative figures, not a real examiner; a thin all-time sample (n=11), posture not scoreboard.
The examiner conceded more often than they won — directional leverage when you're weighing an appeal, not a guarantee (some of these ended on procedure, not the merits).
All-time totals — kept distinct from the recent-window rates above, which is the number you actually respond against.
The coverage
We already have your examiner.
Every active USPTO trademark examiner is already in our index. Find yours — the public page is open to anyone; the behavioral read is what you unlock.
Or see one fully unlocked — the live example profile →
The public page is open to anyone — the full behavioral read unlocks with a plan.
Honest proof
Every figure traces to the public USPTO record.
Verify it yourself.
We're new — est. 2026 — so we don't ask you to trust a quote. Each number is computed from the public file history, against an active-fleet benchmark, with the sample size shown.
Built on public record
Every figure is computed from the public USPTO file-wrapper history — attorney↔examiner office actions and TTAB cases. Nothing private.
Every number is checkable
The §2(d) barrier rows open to the underlying cases — serials and outcomes, deep-linked to the USPTO record — and every rate names its sample. Provenance for the numbers that matter most, not a claim you take on faith.
Sample sizes shown, honestly
Every rate carries its n and window. On a thin examiner we say "Based on 41 §2(d) actions — read directionally" rather than fake precision.
Active-fleet benchmarks
"Harder than 70%" is measured against the examiners taking cases today — not an all-time average that flatters the number.
No testimonials. No logo wall. No invented success stats. The credibility play is verifiability.
Your client's mark can still
reach publication.
See the moves that got there with this examiner.