LEXI LOVE® Trademark History of Federal and International Rights

Key Points the Press Almost Always Flattens or Omits

Most coverage somehow manages to compress a twenty-two-year trademark history into one inaccurate sentence:
“Lexi Love abandoned the mark in 2015.”

I know you’re here for the facts, so here they are.

My 2008 registration (No. 3,475,773) was cancelled on March 6, 2015 after a routine Section 8 maintenance filing was missed. That part is true. What never gets mentioned is that a new federal application was filed on February 6, 2015 — a full month before the cancellation. That second registration (No. 4,843,150) issued on October 27, 2015 and stayed active for six and a half years, until May 13, 2022.

Can you find a single article that acknowledges my 2015 LEXI LOVE registration? As of this writing, I cannot—and that is an impressive editorial achievement, considering that registration covers the exact years during which the press claims I abandoned the mark. Why let the federal record interfere with a profitable storyline? False information generates clicks, clicks generate advertising revenue, and accuracy, it turns out, has a less competitive business model.

Another application was filed in 2022 (Serial No. 97,428,288). It was later abandoned over an administrative filing issue — not because the USPTO examined the LEXI LOVE mark and said “Nope.” Nor did my trademark rights burst into flames and scatter across the Land of Abandonment. That distinction somehow never survives the final edit either.

My current registration (No. 7,727,806) was filed on February 10, 2024 and registered on the Principal Register on March 18, 2025. It remains active.

And for anyone pretending Lexi Love is purely a domestic issue: international protection under the Madrid System (IR No. 1,877,373) are in force across the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico, and Canada.

Trademark abandonment requires discontinued use with intent not to resume. My commercial use of LEXI LOVE began in 2004 and continued across entertainment, media, and related commercial activity. (Hello, I’m Lexi Love).

The complete federal record is publicly available through the USPTO. Apparently reading the information on USPTO.gov and reporting the facts presents a Mount Everest-level challenge — or accuracy is simply incompatible with the preferred storyline for clicks and profits.

Bonus: The 2009 World Intellectual Property Organization Ruling The Press Also Never Mentions

While we’re discussing facts the press never seems to have room for, there is the 2009 WIPO decision.

In Case No. D2009-0417, the panel found that:

• I held established rights in the LEXI LOVE trademark.

• My commercial use dated to August 16, 2004.

• “Lexi Love” was a coined name with a “relatively high level of distinctiveness.”

• LexiLove.com was confusingly similar to my trademark.

• The registrant had no legitimate rights to the domain and had registered it in bad faith.

In short, a cybersquatter had parked the domain and was running click-through ads for dating and relationship services in order to profit off my name. Apparently I was already internet-famous enough in 2005 that someone in Dallas decided the highest and best use of the web was monetizing me through dating links. WIPO ordered LexiLove.com transferred to my company.

So more than fifteen years before the media discovered its preferred “abandoned in 2015” storyline, a WIPO panel recognized my trademark rights and 2004 use, found bad faith, and was like, No. You stop that, right now.

The decision is public, formal, and surprisingly easy to locate. Apparently an international ruling record is less useful than one inaccurate sentence. WIPO, based on evidence. Press, based on what fits between the ads.