USPTO Trademark Filing Strategy for the Squarely Puzzle Brand

The question

What is the optimal USPTO trademark filing strategy for "Squarely" as a puzzle-game brand — which Nice Classification(s) apply (IC 028 games, IC 016 printed books, IC 041 entertainment), what is the likelihood-of-confusion risk from the term's generic-adjacent meanings, and is a (formerly) TEAS Plus standard-character filing sufficient or does the logo need its own application? Context: Squarely is RDCO's puzzle-game / puzzle-book product (iOS app + Amazon KDP puzzle books) and the growth strategy names Amazon Brand Registry as a Phase 1 lubricant gating A+ Content, with trademark as the prerequisite.

This is informational decision-support, NOT legal advice. A USPTO-registered trademark attorney should confirm class selection, identification wording, and a full clearance search before any filing.

What we already know (from the vault)

• Per [[2026-04-25-squarely-current-state-review]], a verified USPTO search found no live mark for "Squarely," "Squarely Puzzles," or "Squarely Up To You" as a puzzle brand. Two unrelated marks exist: SQUARELY STYLISH (glassware, DEAD) and SQUARELY NATURAL (pet food, LIVE, different owner / different class). Trademark-first is framed as the gating prerequisite that unlocks Brand Registry then A+ Content.
• That same review flagged two stale assumptions worth re-checking here: it cites "TEAS Plus ~$250/class" (no longer accurate, see below) and asserts "Brand Registry eligibility CAN sometimes start with a pending application serial number" (only partly true, see below).
• Per [[strategy]] (Squarely Puzzles STRATEGY), the load-bearing growth engine is Amazon KDP search/browse, not the iOS app; the iOS app is fuel for a future viral loop. Three KDP paperbacks are live (B0CD91ZLCY / B0DJ5SZRYN / B0FYNPYM1Z), all with empty A+ Content skeletons.
• The current-state review notes an open founder question already on record: "file under puzzle-book class only, or include the digital-game (iOS app) class too?" This brief answers that directly.
• Author-identity split exists (books/web = John H. Wilson; iOS = Ben Wilson). This matters for the filing because the applicant/owner name on the trademark must be settled before filing — the owner should be the entity that controls the mark across all surfaces.

What the web says

• TEAS Plus and TEAS Standard no longer exist. As of Jan 18, 2025 the USPTO replaced both tiers with a single base application fee of $350 per class (Sections 1 and 44) (USPTO 2025 fee summary). The "TEAS Plus standard-character filing" framing in the question is now obsolete — there is one filing path with surcharge triggers, not two tiers.
• Surcharges (per class) to design the filing around: +$100 for insufficient information; +$200 for using free-text identifications instead of the pre-approved Trademark ID Manual; +$200 per additional 1,000 characters of goods/services text beyond the first 1,000 (USPTO). Using Trademark ID Manual pre-approved entries and complete information keeps you at the clean $350/class — this replicates the old "TEAS Plus discipline."
• Nice classes for a puzzle brand: IC 028 covers games and playthings including physical puzzles (Nolo); downloadable/mobile games are commonly claimed in IC 009 (software) and the in-app entertainment service in IC 041; IC 016 covers printed matter including printed puzzle books; IC 041 covers entertainment services such as providing online/non-downloadable games and puzzles (Revision Legal, How Brands Are Built). Note: the iOS app as a downloadable product typically lands in IC 009, with IC 041 reserved for the online/streamed play experience — the question's "IC 028 for games" maps to the physical puzzle product more cleanly than the app.
• Standard-character (word) mark vs design (logo) mark: A standard-character registration protects the wording "SQUARELY" in any font, color, or styling — the broadest scope (Patent Trademark Blog, Eastgate IP). A design-mark application is only needed to protect the specific logo graphic; it does not broaden word protection and is narrower. The word mark and logo are separate applications (each its own per-class fee).
• Likelihood of confusion (LOC): The USPTO refuses registration when a mark is confusingly similar to a prior live mark for related goods, weighing similarity of the marks and relatedness of the goods/services (USPTO LOC). For design marks containing words, the wording carries the greater weight, so a stylized SQUARELY logo gets roughly the same LOC scrutiny on the word as a plain word mark would (Stites & Harbison). The existing SQUARELY NATURAL (pet food) and dead SQUARELY STYLISH (glassware) are in unrelated classes, so LOC against them for puzzles/books/games is low — but a fresh full clearance search across IC 016/028/009/041 is still required before filing.
• The "Squarely" generic-adjacent risk is descriptiveness, not LOC. "Squarely" is an ordinary English adverb and the puzzles are literally square-grid (5×5) puzzles. The exposure is a merely-descriptive / suggestive refusal under Section 2(e)(1): an examiner could argue SQUARELY describes a feature of square-grid puzzles. Counter-argument: SQUARELY is suggestive (it requires an imaginative leap, and the adverb's primary meaning is "directly/honestly," not "made of squares"), which is registrable on the Principal Register. This is the single most likely substantive office-action risk and is exactly where attorney framing of the identification and any arguments earns its fee.
• Amazon Brand Registry eligibility — important correction. A trademark filed directly with the USPTO that is merely pending is NOT currently sufficient to enroll in Brand Registry; you must wait for full registration (8-12+ months) (Amazon Seller Central forum, JPG Legal). The exception is Amazon IP Accelerator — filing through an Amazon-vetted IP law firm lets you enroll in Brand Registry while the application is still pending (Amazon IP Accelerator). The mark text must exactly match the brand name submitted to Brand Registry; a word mark satisfies this most cleanly (Seller Labs 2026).

Convergences and contradictions

• Convergence: Vault and web agree the brand is open (no blocking puzzle-class mark) and that trademark is the gate to Brand Registry → A+ Content. Both point to a word-mark-first posture.
• Contradiction 1 (fee): Vault says "TEAS Plus ~$250/class." Current reality is a single $350/class base fee; TEAS Plus/Standard were abolished Jan 18, 2025. Update the current-state review.
• Contradiction 2 (Brand Registry): Vault says Brand Registry "CAN sometimes start with a pending application serial number." This is misleading for a direct USPTO filing — direct pending filings do not qualify; only IP Accelerator pending filings or a fully registered mark do. This materially changes the Phase 1 sequencing math.

Synthesis for RDCO

Recommended path (decision-support, not legal advice): file a standard-character (word) mark for "SQUARELY" as the primary asset. The word mark protects the name in any styling — including the iOS wood/glass logo and any future rebrand — and is the broadest, most reusable, and cheapest-per-unit-of-protection asset. Defer a separate design-mark/logo application until the visual identity is settled and stable (per the current-state review, Squarely has no formalized design system yet and the visual identity differs across surfaces — filing a logo now would lock in a mark you are likely to change, wasting the per-class fee). When the logo stabilizes, add a design-mark application then.

On classes, the load-bearing surface today is Amazon KDP printed books, so IC 016 (printed puzzle books) is the must-have first class. The iOS app is pre-launch and the strategy treats it as future fuel; its natural classes are IC 009 (downloadable game software) and IC 041 (online/non-downloadable puzzle entertainment), with IC 028 fitting the physical puzzle product. A disciplined, budget-aware filing is IC 016 now (covers the actual revenue surface and satisfies Brand Registry for the books) and add IC 009/041 (and/or 028) at or near iOS launch. A founder willing to spend for breadth could file IC 016 + IC 009 + IC 041 together up front (~3 classes); each class is $350 base, so a clean 1-class word mark is ~$350 and a 3-class word mark is ~$1,050 in USPTO fees, before any attorney fee. Keep every identification pulled from the Trademark ID Manual to avoid the +$200/class free-text surcharge.

Sequencing against the Amazon Brand Registry Phase 1 dependency is where the stale vault assumption bites. A direct USPTO word-mark filing will not unlock Brand Registry until it registers (roughly 8-12+ months, longer if the descriptiveness refusal lands). If Brand Registry → A+ Content is genuinely the Phase 1 lubricant the growth plan says it is, the fastest legitimate path is Amazon IP Accelerator: file the SQUARELY word mark through an Amazon-network attorney, which both gives RDCO an attorney-cleared filing (de-risking the descriptiveness/LOC issues) and enrolls the brand in Brand Registry while pending — collapsing a ~year-long gate to weeks. IP Accelerator costs more than a DIY filing (vetted-firm fees on top of USPTO fees), but it directly buys the Phase 1 unlock the strategy is waiting on. Net recommendation: word mark, IC 016 first (expand to IC 009/041/028 at iOS launch), filed via Amazon IP Accelerator if Brand Registry timing is on the critical path — otherwise a clean direct $350/class base filing if RDCO can absorb the ~year wait. Resolve the applicant/owner-name question (John vs Ben vs an RDCO entity) before filing, since the owner of record must control the mark across books, web, and app. Again: have a registered attorney confirm class wording, run a full clearance search, and decide IP Accelerator vs direct before money moves.

Open follow-ups

• What does Amazon IP Accelerator actually cost end-to-end in 2026 (vetted-firm fee + USPTO fees) for a 1-class word mark, and what is the realistic time-to-Brand-Registry-enrollment?
• Who should be the trademark owner of record — John H. Wilson, Ben Wilson, or an RDCO LLC — and does that decision interact with the author-identity brand story still unresolved in the current-state review?
• Has any third party filed a "Squarely"-adjacent mark in IC 009/016/028/041 since the 2026-04-25 vault search? (Needs a fresh USPTO TESS / clearance search before filing.)
• If a Section 2(e)(1) merely-descriptive refusal lands, what is the strength of the suggestiveness argument, and is Supplemental Register a fallback that still satisfies Brand Registry?
• Does KDP-originated partial Brand Registry (the A+ skeleton already present on the three books) provide any A+ Content access today without waiting on the trademark, and if so, should A+ build start now in parallel?

Related

• [[2026-04-25-squarely-current-state-review]] — baseline 4-surface review; documents the no-trademark-filed state, the Brand Registry skeleton, and the trademark-first sequencing this brief refines
• [[strategy]] — Squarely Puzzles STRATEGY; establishes Amazon KDP as the load-bearing engine and the iOS app as future fuel, which drives the IC 016-first class recommendation
• [[growth-strategy]] — Squarely growth strategy naming Amazon Brand Registry as the Phase 1 lubricant gating A+ Content
• [[2026-04-03-racecar-growth-framework]] — the growth diagnosis underpinning the Squarely engine-vs-turbo-boost framing

Sources

• Vault: ~/rdco-vault/01-projects/squarely/state-reviews/2026-04-25-squarely-current-state-review.md
• Vault: ~/rdco-vault/01-projects/squarely-puzzles/strategy.md
• Vault: ~/rdco-vault/01-projects/squarely-puzzles/growth-strategy.md
• Vault: ~/rdco-vault/06-reference/2026-04-03-racecar-growth-framework.md
• USPTO — 2025 trademark fee changes summary: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/fees-payment-information/summary-2025-trademark-fee-changes
• USPTO — Likelihood of confusion: https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/likelihood-confusion
• Nolo — Trademark Class 28 (games & sporting goods): https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/trademark-class-28-games-sporting-goods.html
• Revision Legal — What trademark class is a video game: https://revisionlegal.com/trademark/what-trademark-class-is-a-video-game/
• How Brands Are Built — Trademark international classes: https://howbrandsarebuilt.com/trademark-international-classes/
• Patent Trademark Blog — Word mark vs design mark (standard character vs stylized logo): https://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/standard-character-trademark-word-mark-vs-stylized-logo-design-mark/
• Eastgate IP — Standard character vs design trademarks: https://www.eastgateip.com/standard-character-trademarks-vs-design-trademarks-the-benefits-and-differences/
• Stites & Harbison — Is a design mark worth a thousand words: https://www.stites.com/resources/trademarkology/is-a-design-mark-worth-a-thousand-words/
• Amazon — IP Accelerator: https://sell.amazon.com/programs/ip-accelerator
• Amazon Seller Central forum — pending direct USPTO filing & Brand Registry: https://sellercentral.amazon.com/seller-forums/discussions/t/86dc6d37-61ae-40b7-a4b4-87a997279ca6
• JPG Legal — Brand Registry & pending trademarks: https://jpglegal.com/amazon-brand-registry-accepts-pending-trademarks/
• Seller Labs — Amazon Brand Registry requirements 2026: https://www.sellerlabs.com/blog/amazon-brand-registry-requirements-2026/