Trigger. A sub-product brand name is locked (final consumer-facing name decided) AND consumer-facing reveal is in the 4-6 month horizon. Target 6 months; tighten to 4 only if a competitor is detected racing to file the same mark.
Step 1: Multi-vector clearance on pick-day. Same pattern as the parent name on 17 May. Check USPTO TSDR for the exact name and close variants in the target classes; check EUIPO TMview for EU-wide existing marks; check UK IPO and IP Australia for Anglo-market collisions; check WHOIS for .com / .co / .app domain availability; acquire .com immediately (domain squatters move within hours of public WHOIS lookups). Zero public mention until USPTO emails the filing receipt.
Step 2: File the Intent-to-Use application under the parent company's name, NOT under the sub-LLC. The parent C-Corp is the permanent IP-holding entity; sub-LLCs are operating shells. Classes per product: Cl 9 (mobile app) + Cl 42 (web platform) + Cl 44 (human coaching) if the product mirrors the parent's wellness software + SaaS + coaching shape. Adjust per product. ~$1,050-1,500 USPTO fees (three classes) + $500-1,500 IP-counsel review.
Step 3: License the trademark from parent to the operating sub-LLC under a written Trademark License Agreement. Required quality-control clauses (the cure for the 'naked license' trap, leading case Eva's Bridal v. Halanick Enterprises, 7th Cir. 2011): brand-style-guide compliance, parent approval of marketing materials, parent sign-off on product specs, audit rights, defined term and termination conditions. The rights must be exercised (annual audit ritual, brand-guideline review of each launch); token clauses with no real supervision lose the mark via abandonment under §1127.
NEVER assign an Intent-to-Use filing from parent to sub-LLC before the Statement of Use has been filed. The §1060(a) anti-transfer rule blocks it. A newly-formed single-product sub-LLC cannot satisfy the 'successor to the ongoing-and-existing business' exception. License only at the reservation stage.
Step 4: Statement of Use at product launch. File the Statement of Use with USPTO under §1051(d) and submit a specimen (app store screenshot, marketing material). USPTO converts the reservation into a live registration. 6-month extensions available at $125 per class up to 3 years if launch slips.
Step 5: Foreign-filing decision. Each product trademark gets its own independent 6-month Paris Convention priority window from its US filing date. Decide once at the parent level; the same rule applies per-product without re-deciding.
Defensive class strategy at the 2-year mark, parent only, not products. Revisit Class 35 (business management / advertising) and Class 41 (educational content) for the parent name only if a parent-branded business-management or B2B services arm materialises with documented bona-fide intent. Sub-products never get defensive class expansion.
Family-of-marks doctrine. Once the parent mark is registered, every new product mark filed becomes a junior member of the parent's 'family of marks'; third parties trying to register confusingly similar marks in our classes can be blocked on family-of-marks grounds (J&J Snack Foods v. McDonald's, Fed. Cir. 1991) even before the specific product was filed.
Pokemon is outside this playbook. Its trademark filing lives under iid 6f2fcd5274 with its own independent thread, owned by the separate Pokemon C-Corp.
Verification anchor. Tier-1 corporate-counsel verdict 2026-05-17 (two rounds, Opus, agent ID a7e2e99043b17d625). Primary-source citations: 15 U.S.C. §§1051(b), 1057(c), 1060(a), 1127, 1126(d); 37 CFR §§2.32(a)(6), 3.25; TMEP §§503.01, 501.06, 806, 1213.05(b), 1402. Leading cases: M.Z. Berger v. Swatch AG (Fed. Cir. 2015) for bona-fide intent per class; Eva's Bridal v. Halanick (7th Cir. 2011) for naked-licensing cure; J&J Snack Foods v. McDonald's (Fed. Cir. 1991) for family-of-marks doctrine.