Do RDCO's 2023 Squarely Books Create Senior Common-Law Rights That Move the IC 009/041 Priority Needle Against Hex Tree's 2025 Game?
The question
Does RDCO's first use in commerce (Squarely KDP books, 2023) predate Hex Tree's 2025 Steam game enough to give senior common-law rights that change the IC 009/041 priority-date exposure? Context: deep-research follow-up to the 2026-06-19 Squarely clearance search, which surfaced a third-party "Squarely" Steam game (Hex Tree Games, released Nov 21 2025) competing in the exact digital-puzzle category RDCO plans to file in at iOS launch.
What we already know (from the vault)
- Per [[2026-06-19-squarely-trademark-clearance-search]], the new collision is Hex Tree Games' "Squarely" Steam puzzle game, released Nov 21 2025, mapping to IC 009 (downloadable game) / IC 041 (online play). No corresponding USPTO filing for it surfaced; its register status is unknown. The brief flagged IC 009/041 as the caution classes and listed this exact priority-date question as an open follow-up.
- Per [[2026-06-13-squarely-uspto-trademark-filing-strategy]], the filing plan is a standard-character SQUARELY word mark, IC 016 (printed puzzle books) first, expanding to IC 009/041/028 at iOS launch. The single most likely substantive refusal is Section 2(e)(1) merely-descriptive (square-grid puzzles), not likelihood-of-confusion.
- Per [[2026-04-25-squarely-current-state-review]], three KDP paperbacks are live (B0CD91ZLCY / B0DJ5SZRYN / B0FYNPYM1Z); the 2023 first-use anchor for the books rests on those listings. An unresolved owner-of-record question (John H. Wilson vs Ben Wilson vs an RDCO entity) sits underneath any priority claim.
- Per [[strategy]], Amazon KDP printed books are the load-bearing engine; the iOS app is pre-launch future fuel, which is why IC 016 (not IC 009/041) is the cleanest near-term filing.
What the web says
- US trademark priority flows from use, not registration. The first party to use a mark in commerce is the "senior user" with superior rights; inventing or registering first does not confer ownership (LegalClarity, Griffith Barbee).
- Common-law rights are geographically limited and "freeze" against a junior federal filer. They extend only to the territory of actual use; once a junior party obtains federal registration, the senior common-law user's rights freeze to the scope/territory it held as of the junior's application filing date (constructive use) (NY Trademark Lawyer, Volpe Koenig). Intrastate use suffices to establish common-law priority; interstate is not required.
- Cross-class reach runs through "related goods," not class numbers. Marks in different classes usually do not conflict, with one exception: similar marks for related products sold through similar channels can conflict even across classes (Patent Trademark Blog, Lawyer-Chicago). Priority in goods you actually sell does not automatically carry into goods you don't.
- Zone of natural expansion is a shield, not a sword. A senior user MAY defend related goods consumers would expect from it — but the Federal Circuit (Dollar Financial Group v. Brittex Financial) held the doctrine cannot be used offensively to claim/register an expanded line where confusion would result (Knobbe Martens, CLL). It only applies when the goods are genuinely related.
- Book titles get thin trademark protection. A single title is generally not registrable; series titles (2+ works) can be (Copylaw). Extension from books into software/games/film is treated as brand extension / licensing, not automatic expansion of rights.
- An intent-to-use (ITU) federal application beats later common-law use. Filing an ITU gives priority over anyone who began using the mark after the filing date (LegalClarity).
Convergences and contradictions
- Convergence: Both the vault and the law point the same way — RDCO's strongest, cleanest position is the books (IC 016), where its 2023 use almost certainly predates Hex Tree and where no competing mark surfaced. The digital classes (IC 009/041) are exactly where the doctrine gets thin.
- Tension (not contradiction): "We were first (2023)" is true for books but does NOT mechanically translate into senior rights for downloadable games. The 2023 date is senior in IC 016; whether it reaches IC 009/041 depends on a related-goods / zone-of-expansion analysis that, per Federal Circuit law, is defensive only and cannot be wielded offensively to register over Hex Tree's actual game use.
- Key uncertainty unchanged from 2026-06-19: Hex Tree's USPTO status is unknown. If they file (especially an ITU) before RDCO files IC 009/041, their filing date could outrank RDCO's later use in the games class regardless of RDCO's earlier book use.
Synthesis for RDCO
This is informational decision-support, NOT legal advice. A USPTO-registered trademark attorney must run a live clearance search and confirm any priority position before RDCO relies on it or files.
Bottom line: the 2023 books plausibly create senior common-law rights in printed books (IC 016) — but they do NOT cleanly create senior rights in downloadable games / online play (IC 009/041), which is precisely the class where Hex Tree's 2025 game lives. The instinct "we used Squarely first, in 2023, so we outrank a 2025 game" is half-right and dangerous if over-relied on. Priority in US trademark law is goods-specific and use-driven: RDCO's 2023 use is for puzzle books (printed matter), and that use is senior only for the goods it actually covers and goods genuinely related to them. A downloadable video game is a different good in a different channel (Steam vs Amazon KDP). The bridge that could carry RDCO's book priority into the games space is the zone-of-natural-expansion doctrine — and the Federal Circuit has squarely held that doctrine is a shield, not a sword. RDCO could potentially use it defensively (e.g., to resist a Hex Tree opposition, or to defend its own related-goods use), but it cannot use it offensively to register SQUARELY in IC 009/041 over Hex Tree's existing game use if that would cause confusion. So the 2023 date helps RDCO hold ground in/near books; it is not a trump card that clears the games classes.
There is a second hard limit specific to books as the priority source: book-title trademark rights are inherently thin. A single title generally is not protectable; a series title (RDCO has 3 volumes, which clears the 2+ bar) can be — but courts and the USPTO treat moving from a book series into software/games as brand extension/licensing, not an automatic carry-over of rights. That further weakens any argument that 2023 book sales auto-confer games-class seniority. RDCO's real common-law footprint in IC 009/041 today is essentially zero (the iOS app is pre-launch per [[strategy]]), so in the games class Hex Tree is currently the senior common-law user, having actually shipped a Squarely game in Nov 2025.
What this means for priority-date exposure and strategy: (1) IC 016 first remains correct and is now more clearly the right move — it is the class where RDCO's 2023 use is genuinely senior and where no collision surfaced. File it. (2) For IC 009/041, the 2023 books do NOT meaningfully reduce the Hex Tree exposure. The decisive variable is timing of federal filings, not the book first-use date: if Hex Tree has filed (or files an ITU) for the games classes before RDCO does, their filing date likely outranks RDCO's later games-class use. (3) The fastest defensive lever RDCO actually controls is to file an intent-to-use (ITU) application in IC 009/041 now, ahead of iOS launch, to plant a constructive-use priority date that beats anyone who starts using after the filing — rather than waiting for launch and relying on a books-to-games expansion theory that is defensive-only. (4) None of this changes the standing recommendation: the IC 009/041 classes need a real, attorney-run live clearance specifically against Hex Tree (TSDR / tmsearch.uspto.gov) before filing, including a direct check of whether Hex Tree has a live or pending Squarely application. The descriptiveness (2(e)(1)) risk from [[2026-06-13-squarely-uspto-trademark-filing-strategy]] also still applies and can compound a crowded-field weakness given the many "Square*" puzzle games.
Open follow-ups
- Does Hex Tree Games have a live or pending USPTO "Squarely" application in IC 009/028/041, and what is its filing/priority date relative to RDCO's planned filing? (Decisive variable — needs a live TSDR / attorney search.)
- Should RDCO file an intent-to-use (ITU) application in IC 009/041 NOW (pre-iOS-launch) to secure a constructive-use priority date ahead of Hex Tree, rather than waiting for launch?
- Can RDCO document continuous, secondary-meaning-grade use of "Squarely" as a book series mark since 2023 (sales volume, advertising, exclusivity) strong enough to support a defensive zone-of-expansion argument into adjacent goods?
- Would narrowing the IC 009/041 identification (e.g., explicitly tying the app to the puzzle-book brand) strengthen a relatedness/expansion argument and reduce the confusion overlap with Hex Tree's standalone game?
- Does the owner-of-record split (John H. Wilson books vs Ben Wilson iOS) fragment the common-law chain of title in a way that weakens any 2023-priority claim? (Settle owner before filing.)
Related
- [[2026-06-19-squarely-trademark-clearance-search]] — the clearance brief that surfaced the Hex Tree collision and posed this exact priority-date follow-up
- [[2026-06-13-squarely-uspto-trademark-filing-strategy]] — filing-strategy brief; word mark, IC 016-first, expand to IC 009/041/028 at iOS launch; Section 2(e)(1) descriptiveness as the main refusal risk
- [[2026-04-25-squarely-current-state-review]] — baseline review documenting the 2023 KDP book listings and the owner-of-record question underlying any priority claim
- [[strategy]] — Squarely Puzzles STRATEGY; KDP books as load-bearing engine, iOS app as pre-launch future fuel (why IC 009/041 common-law footprint is ~zero today)
Sources
- Vault:
~/rdco-vault/06-reference/research/2026-06-19-squarely-trademark-clearance-search.md - Vault:
~/rdco-vault/06-reference/research/2026-06-13-squarely-uspto-trademark-filing-strategy.md - 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 - LegalClarity — Trademark first use: establishing priority and proof: https://legalclarity.org/trademark-first-use-establishing-priority-and-proof/
- Griffith Barbee — Common law trademark rights and priority of use: https://griffithbarbee.com/common-law-trademark-rights-and-priority-of-use/
- NY Trademark Lawyer — Priority disputes: common law rights vs federal registration: https://www.ny-trademark-lawyer.com/priority-disputes-common-law-rights-vs-federal-trademark-registr.html
- Volpe Koenig — Trademarks, priority and 'frozen' rights: https://www.vklaw.com/ImagineThatIPLawBlog/trademarks-priority-and-frozen-rights-important-factors
- Patent Trademark Blog — What is trademark priority: https://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/trademark-priority/
- Lawyer-Chicago — Related goods & services under trademark law: https://www.lawyer-chicago.com/related-goods-services-under-trademark-law/
- Knobbe Martens — Zone of natural expansion can only be used defensively (Dollar Financial v. Brittex): https://www.knobbe.com/blog/zoned-out-the-zone-of-natural-expansion-doctrine-can-only-be-used-defensively/
- Cowan Liebowitz & Latman — Zone of natural expansion is defensive not offensive: https://www.cll.com/OnMyMindBlog/trademarks-zone-of-natural-expansion-is-defensive-not-offensive
- Copylaw — How to trademark a book title (single vs series): https://www.copylaw.org/p/trademark-law-book-titles.html
- Steam — "Squarely" by Hex Tree Games (released Nov 21 2025): https://store.steampowered.com/app/3880290/Squarely/