Description

I have indisputable evidence of fraud showing that on March 21, 2025, American Web Wizards withdrew funds from my business account without my explicit consent. I did not authorize the $35 and $700 disbursements to American Web Wizards. At no time did I purchase any digital web design services for either myself or my business ******** ***** LLC. There is no justifiable explanation concerning the manner in which American Web Wizards has unlawfully gained access to my business account with the assistance of Trademark Association LLC's conspirator bearing the name Oliver Braxton, who is responsible for the misrepresentation of United States Patent and Trademark Office [UPTO] procedures, withholding official application information, and soliciting payment for services and fees not required. Braxton improperly appointed David Sears, an U.S.-licensed attorney and has either (1) used David Sears information without his knowledge or permission, or (2) paid David Sears to use his name and bar registration details in trademark filings to conduct fraudulent business practices. David Sears has yet to respond to these allegations made in my June 4, 2025 email sent to him at 4:09 pm requesting for the USPTO's Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) to investigate his misconduct. It was the intent of Braxton to take funds from me in the amount of $35 for a service fee and gain access to my business account. Braxton led me to believe that making payment in the amount of $700 to Trademark Association LLC would cover the cost for filing my business trademark application with the USPTO. There is no record of a $35 payment made to Trademark Association LLC except for a $700 payment that was directed to American Web Wizards. I have clear and convincing evidence that Braxton knowingly made false, material representations about trademark law and my application, with the intent to deceive me for financial gain on behalf of American Web Wizards. Here’s how my situation aligns with legal standards and recognized scam patterns: 1. False, Material Statements About USPTO Requirements Misrepresentation of Maintenance Fees: Braxton told me via phone and email communication that I needed to pay an additional $1,200 in “post-registration (Maintenance) Fees” immediately after filing. See attached email from Braxton and phone records. In reality, the USPTO does not require maintenance fees until between the 5th and 6th year after registration, and then every 10 years thereafter. Demanding these fees upfront is a common trademark scam. False Claims About Required Filings: Braxton insisted I must file a Declaration of Use (Section 8), Declaration of Incontestability (Section 15), and Section 9 renewal immediately. These filings are not required at the application stage—Section 8 and 15 filings are only due years after registration, and Section 9 is only for renewal every 10 years. Invented Urgency and Incontestability Status: Braxton claimed I qualified for incontestability status and needed to combine Section 8 and 15 filings now. In reality, Section 15 only applies after five years of continuous use, and combining it with Section 8 is only possible at that time, not before. See attached Fraudulent USPTO Action document. 2. Withholding Official USPTO Information Refusal to Provide Serial or Registration Number: Braxton did not give me a USPTO serial, registration, or reference number, preventing me from verifying my application status via the official TSDR system. Legitimate trademark service providers always supply this information, and withholding it is a red flag for fraud. 3. Pattern of Deceptive Conduct Consistent with Known Scams Request for Payment to Unrelated Entity: I paid American Web Wizards, not Trademark Association LLC or the USPTO, which is another indicator of a scam. Continued Misleading Communications: Braxton continued to pressure me for additional, unnecessary payments and provided misleading information about USPTO processes, matching the tactics described in USPTO warnings about trademark scams. 4. Legal Standard for Proving Fraud Intent to Deceive: Fraud requires showing that the false statements were made knowingly and with the intent to deceive. The repeated, willful misrepresentations about required fees and filings, coupled with the refusal to provide official USPTO documentation, support an inference of intent to defraud. Evidence Collected and Presented in this Email All emails, invoices, and payment records. Screenshots of communications where Braxton makes false claims about USPTO requirements. Records of my requests for a USPTO serial or registration number and Braxton refusal to provide them. Correspondence showing pressure to pay unnecessary fees or threats of negative consequences for non-payment. Legal Standard for Trademark Fraud To establish fraud, I must prove: A false representation was made (e.g., about USPTO requirements or my application status). The falsehood was material (it affected my decision to pay or proceed). Braxton knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The false statement was made with intent to deceive. Supporting Case Law and Guidance The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has held that “reckless disregard for the truth” in representations to the USPTO is enough to show fraudulent intent. Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, but direct proof of intent is rare; circumstantial evidence (such as repeated false statements and refusal to provide official information) is sufficient1. Honest mistakes or misunderstandings do not constitute fraud—there must be evidence of knowing falsity or conscious indifference to the truth. In summary I can prove Braxton’s actions are fraudulent by documenting his knowingly false statements about USPTO requirements, his refusal to provide official application information, and his pattern of soliciting unnecessary payments. These actions meet the legal threshold for fraud—especially when supported by emails, invoices, and payment records—because they show not just error but a knowing or reckless intent to deceive for personal gain. The unauthorized withdrawal of $735 from my business account will constitute a cause of action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York for fraud through indirect involvement when American Web Wizards (1) failed to vet Trademark Association LLC; (2) knowingly processed payments for Trademark Association LLC with no clear business model; (3) failed to verify the legitimacy of transactions; (4) turned a blind eye to fraud; (5) enabled fraudulent conduct; and (6) failed to implement proper monitoring and controls. The Federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act and state law, which prohibit unauthorized withdrawals, provides for recovery from damages, restitution, and possibly punitive damages against both Trademark Association LLC and American Web Wizards.