TTIPAB Trade Marks Attorney common mistakes
TTIPAB Trade Marks Attorney · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Citing the wrong statutory provision for a ground of opposition, for example invoking the bad-faith ground under the section dealing with earlier conflicting rights, or pleading a relative ground when the objection is actually an absolute ground of distinctiveness.
Candidates memorise ground labels ('bad faith', 'earlier mark', 'descriptive') without anchoring each to its section number and statutory structure, so under time pressure they reach for the nearest familiar label rather than the provision that actually creates the ground.
What to do instead
Build a one-page mapping table listing each ground, its exact section, its nature (absolute or relative), and its leading test. Rehearse it until you can state section number and ground in both directions. In every practice answer, write the section number in the first sentence of each ground before discussing substance.
Treating the goods-and-services comparison as a bare assertion that the marks cover 'similar goods' without identifying the specific items, the class, and the degree of similarity or dissimilarity.
Candidates focus on the mark comparison because it feels more substantive, and treat the specification as background. They also confuse identical goods with goods of the same class, assuming class co-membership equals similarity.
What to do instead
For every comparison, quote the exact wording of each specification, state the class numbers, then apply a structured test: nature, purpose, method of use, users, and whether they are competitive or complementary. Practise by writing the goods comparison paragraph first, before the mark comparison, in ten practice questions.
Applying the global assessment of likelihood of confusion as a checklist of separate factors, concluding 'marks similar, goods similar, therefore confusion', rather than an interdependent overall assessment.
The interdependence principle is easy to state and hard to apply. Candidates under exam pressure default to a mechanical factor tally because it produces a definite answer quickly.
What to do instead
In each answer, explicitly state that the factors are interdependent, then show the interdependence in action: for example, that a lesser degree of goods similarity may be offset by a higher degree of mark similarity. Write a sentence beginning 'Although the goods similarity is low, the near identity of the marks means...' in every practice answer to make the reasoning visible.
Describing the examination process without distinguishing the search and examination stages, the reporting of grounds, the applicant's response period, and the hearing and appeal routes, or mixing up the sequence.
Procedure is learned from scattered reading rather than a timeline, so candidates recall individual steps but not their order or the consequences of each deadline.
What to do instead
Draw a single flowchart from filing to registration, marking at each node: what the Registrar does, what the applicant may do, the time limit, the extension mechanism, and the review or appeal route. Redraw it from memory weekly and annotate each arrow with the relevant rule or regulation.
Advising on classification by choosing a class because a similar product appears there, without applying the class headings and explanatory notes to the actual goods or services claimed.
Candidates rely on keyword intuition or memorised examples from a few well-known cases rather than the structure of the classification system and its explanatory notes.
What to do instead
For each practice specification, open the relevant class heading and explanatory notes, then justify each claimed item against them in writing. Learn the boundary problems that recur (for example retail services versus the goods sold, and repair versus installation) and practise drafting specifications that survive examination without over-claiming.
Pleading a ground of invalidity or revocation without identifying the precise statutory basis and the date from which it is assessed, such as arguing non-use without fixing the relevant five-year period and the date of the application for revocation.
Candidates conflate the substantive concept with its procedural requirements. The relevant period and assessment date are arithmetic details that are easy to skip when concentrating on the argument.
What to do instead
Start every contentious answer with a short 'framework' paragraph: the ground, the section, the burden, the relevant date, and the relevant period. Then compute the dates explicitly on the page. Do five date-calculation drills using different filing and registration dates.
Giving the client a confident conclusion on registrability or infringement without flagging the limits of the search, the assumptions made, and the need for a formal clearance search or legal advice.
Candidates want to demonstrate knowledge, so they present a definite answer. They also underweight the risk that an unregistered earlier right or an overseas mark may not appear in the searched register.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed advice structure: facts assumed, searches performed and their coverage, conclusion with a stated confidence level, residual risks, and recommended next steps. Practise writing the 'limitations' paragraph first, so it cannot be dropped when time runs short.
Confusing trade mark rights with neighbouring rights, for example treating passing off, copyright, design protection, or geographical indications as if they were statutory trade mark rights or as interchangeable alternatives.
The subjects overlap factually, and candidates learn each in isolation without a comparative map of what each protects, how it is acquired, and its duration.
What to do instead
Build a comparison grid with rows for subject matter, acquisition, duration, infringement test, and remedies, and columns for trade marks, passing off, copyright, designs, and geographical indications. Fill it from primary sources, then use it to answer three hybrid problem questions where more than one right is in play.
Ignoring the territorial nature of trade marks and applying domestic law to a cross-border dispute, or assuming an international registration or a foreign registration automatically gives protection domestically.
Candidates read the international chapter as a set of filing conveniences rather than as a system that channels applications into national or regional law, so they miss that the substantive test remains territorial.
What to do instead
For every international scenario, state the territory, the applicable national or regional law, and the route by which protection is sought before analysing substance. Write a short note explaining what the international filing system does and does not achieve, and test it against three cross-border fact patterns.
Missing or misstating a deadline in a contentious matter, such as the period for filing a counterstatement or a notice of opposition, and failing to advise the client about extension possibilities.
Deadlines are scattered across rules and regulations, and candidates study substance far more than time limits, so the dates blur under exam conditions.
What to do instead
Keep a single deadline sheet for each proceeding type, with the triggering event, the period, the extension provision, and the consequence of default. Before answering any procedural question, write the timeline at the top of your answer and check every date against it.