Entity Name and DBA Checklist: Formation, Registration, Clearance, and Conflicts

By Casey Scott McKay · 2024-02-11

Business naming goes wrong in a predictable order, and this checklist reverses it. It runs eight phases: generate and screen candidates, knock them out, clear the survivor properly, check the regulated-name gates, reserve and form, file the assumed name correctly, secure the federal and digital layers, and handle a conflict if one arrives. Each box gives the reason, the authority where there is one, and the trap. It covers the details that formation services skip — newspaper publication deadlines, county-level assumed name filings, foreign qualification under a different name, and the assumed name statutes that can bar a business from suing on its own contracts. A worked matter runs throughout. The companion article explains why a Secretary of State approval proves so little, and the companion guide gives the drafting and the timing.

IP and Technology > Trademarks | Checklist | Published 11 February 2024 - Updated 5 February 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. Business naming goes wrong in a predictable order, and this checklist reverses it. It runs eight phases: generate and screen candidates, knock them out, clear the survivor properly, check the regulated-name gates, reserve and form, file the assumed name correctly, secure the federal and digital layers, and handle a conflict if one arrives. Each box gives the reason, the authority where there is one, and the trap. It covers the details that formation services skip — newspaper publication deadlines, county-level assumed name filings, foreign qualification under a different name, and the assumed name statutes that can bar a business from suing on its own contracts. A worked matter runs throughout. The companion article explains why a Secretary of State approval proves so little, and the companion guide gives the drafting and the timing.

Keywords: entity name checklist, DBA filing, assumed name certificate, fictitious business name, name reservation, formation sequencing, knockout search, trademark clearance, foreign qualification, restricted words, state trademark registration, business license, name conflict, demand letter response, coexistence agreement, domain and handle, specimen refusal, applicant name, chain of title, brand selection

How to use this checklist

| Phase | What it covers | Who owns it | When | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Generate candidates and screen for registrability | Counsel + founder | Week 1 | | 2 | Knockout search | Counsel | Week 1 | | 3 | Full search and written opinion | Counsel | Week 2 | | 4 | Regulated-name gates | Counsel | Week 2 | | 5 | Reserve and form | Counsel + formation | Week 3 | | 6 | Assumed name, licenses, and qualification | Operations | Week 3 | | 7 | Federal application and the digital layer | Counsel + marketing | Week 4 | | 8 | Conflicts, letters, and coexistence | Counsel | If it happens |

The order is the whole point. Almost every business does Phase 5 first and Phase 3 never. Boxes marked [Gate] must clear before the next phase starts.

The matter. Harrowgate Provisions, a specialty grocery. The client arrived with one name, a formation service quote, and a signage order already drafted. The signage order was cancelled, the sequence was run, and fourteen months later the mark registered — with one office action, one consent agreement, and no rebrand.

Phase 1. Generate candidates and screen for registrability

[ ] Insist on five to eight candidates, not one.
- Why. A single-name engagement produces a search that defends a decision instead of informing one.
- Trap. A founder who has already ordered signage. Ask before searching.
[ ] Screen each candidate for the surname bar.
- Why. Primarily-merely-a-surname marks are refused on the principal register absent acquired distinctiveness, and founder names are the most common candidate.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4). See The Section 2 Bars.
- Trap. Assuming a rare surname is safe. Rareness helps the argument; it does not eliminate the refusal.
[ ] Screen for geographic descriptiveness and misdescriptiveness.
- Why. City and region names carry a refusal, and the deceptive variant is barred outright.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2); 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(3).
- Trap. A place name the founder chose for sentimental reasons, which is the hardest one to talk them out of.
[ ] Screen for mere descriptiveness and genericness.
- Why. Descriptive marks need acquired distinctiveness; generic terms are never protectable.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). See From Descriptive to Distinctive.
- Trap. The name everybody likes best is usually the most descriptive one.
[ ] Screen for deceptive matter and false connection.
- Why. A name suggesting a connection with a person or institution is barred.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
- Trap. A name borrowing an institution's prestige "as an homage."
[ ] Rank the candidates before any searching.
- Why. When the top choice fails you need a second choice that already exists on paper.
- Trap. Ranking after the search, which is just re-litigating the failure.
[ ] Explain the marketing-versus-protection trade-off in writing.
- Why. Descriptive names market easily and protect poorly; coined names are the reverse. Clients should choose knowingly.
- Trap. Letting the client believe they can have both.

Phase 2. The knockout search

[ ] Search the federal register for identical and near-identical marks in related classes.
- Why. A direct hit ends the inquiry cheaply.
- Authority. See Trademark Clearance Searching.
- Trap. Searching only the exact string in only your own class.
[ ] Search phonetic equivalents and common misspellings.
- Why. Similarity is judged on sound as well as sight, and sound dominates for spoken brands.
- Trap. A name that is visually unique and audibly identical to a senior mark.
[ ] Search the dominant portion alone, without descriptive matter.
- Why. Consumers attribute source to the distinctive element.
- Trap. Searching "Harrowgate Provisions" and never searching "Harrowgate."
[ ] Search translations and foreign equivalents.
- Why. The doctrine of foreign equivalents compares a mark to its English translation.
- Trap. A candidate that translates into a registered English mark in the same field.
[ ] Search related goods and services, not just the class.
- Why. Relatedness is commercial, not administrative. Clothing and retail clothing services are related; so are software and the services it performs.
- Trap. Treating the class number as a boundary.
[ ] Assess whether the field is crowded.
- Why. A shared element across many registrations is weak, which cuts both ways and reframes a scary-looking hit.
- Trap. Abandoning a viable name because of one hit in a field full of them.
[ ] Search state registers, entity databases, domains, handles, and general web sources.
- Why. Common law rights are real and invisible to the federal register.
- Trap. Stopping at the federal register because it is the easiest to search.
[ ] [Gate] Document what you searched, where, and on what date.
- Why. Four years later the contemporaneous search record is the difference between documented good faith and nothing.
- Trap. A search that lives only in a browser history.

Harrowgate, Phase 2. One candidate died on a phonetically identical registration in a related food class. One died on a domain the client could not obtain. Two survived to the full search.

Phase 3. Full search and written opinion

[ ] Order a comprehensive search on the leading candidate.
- Why. Federal, state, common law, domain, and business-name coverage in one analyzable report.
- Trap. Ordering the report and never reading past the summary page.
[ ] Analyze each reference against the client's actual and planned goods and services.
- Why. Relatedness, channels, purchaser sophistication, and the strength of the cited mark drive the answer.
- Trap. Counting hits instead of weighing them.
[ ] [Gate] Produce a written opinion with a stated risk level and the references driving it.
- Why. The opinion converts a search into advice and protects both client and counsel.
- Authority. See Running a Full Trademark Clearance Search.
- Trap. An oral "looks fine," which is worth nothing when a letter arrives.
[ ] State explicitly what the search did not cover.
- Why. Common law use is imperfectly searchable and clients should know it.
- Trap. An opinion that reads as a guarantee.
[ ] Recommend an identification of goods and services that minimizes the identified risk.
- **Why. **Narrowing around a known conflict is often what makes a good name usable.
- Trap. A broad identification drafted for ambition rather than for the actual business. See Goods and Services Identification Checklist.
[ ] Record the client's decision to proceed, including any risk they are accepting.
- Why. Deliberate acceptance of a documented risk is a different posture from ignorance.
- Trap. A decision made on a phone call and never written down.

Phase 4. The regulated-name gates

[ ] Check restricted words for the state of formation.
- Why. Bank, trust, insurance, university, engineer, and similar terms require regulatory consent.
- Trap. Using a restricted word in the trade name only, which never hits the state's screen.
[ ] Check financial services naming and advertising rules if applicable.
- Authority. See Branding Money; Financial Services Branding Checklist.
- Trap. Clearing the entity name and never reviewing how the name appears alongside required disclosures.
[ ] Check professional licensing rules for law, medicine, dentistry, accounting, engineering, or architecture.
- Why. Boards restrict trade names, names implying nonexistent partnerships, and names implying unheld specializations.
- Trap. A firm name that satisfies the Lanham Act and violates a board rule.
[ ] Check regulated-goods naming regimes: pharmaceuticals, devices, alcohol, cannabis, supplements, firearms.
- Authority. See Regulated Industry Trademark Filing Checklist; The Lawful Use Requirement.
- Trap. Sequencing a slow regulatory name review after the trademark filing, so a failure lands after the money is spent.
[ ] [Gate] Confirm no gate is unresolved before reserving the name.
- Why. A name that fails a regulator is unusable regardless of the register.
- Trap. Treating "probably fine" as cleared.

Phase 5. Reserve and form

[ ] Reserve the entity name in the state of formation and any state of immediate operation.
- Why. Cheap, fast, and holds the record while formation is prepared.
- Trap. A reservation that expires unnoticed.
[ ] Confirm availability under the exact formulation, including the entity designator.
- Why. Some states treat "Inc." and "LLC" variants as distinguishable and some do not.
- Trap. Reserving one form and filing another.
[ ] Form the entity under the reserved name, matching exactly.
- Trap. A typo in the formation document that propagates into every downstream record.
[ ] Decide which entity will own the mark and record it.
- Why. Operating-versus-holding ownership drives chain of title, and a license between them needs real quality control.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1055; see Naked Licensing.
- Trap. Ownership drifting to whichever entity happened to file.
[ ] Confirm the founder will not own the mark personally.
- Why. Personal ownership complicates financings, sales, and founder disputes.
- Authority. See Whose Brand Is It?.
- Trap. A founder who filed a pro se application before engaging counsel, with no assignment on file.

Phase 6. Assumed name, licenses, and qualification

[ ] Determine whether your state files assumed names at the state or county level.
- Why. County-level states may require a filing in every county of operation.
- Trap. One filing where four were required.
[ ] [Gate] Check whether newspaper publication is required, and calendar the deadline.
- Why. Several states require publication within a fixed window, and missing it can invalidate the filing.
- Trap. A formation service that never mentions it.
[ ] File the assumed name before operating under it.
- Why. Some states bar a business from maintaining suit on a contract made under an unregistered assumed name until cured.
- Trap. Discovering this as a defense raised against your own collection action.
[ ] Qualify as a foreign entity in every state of substantial presence.
- Why. Operating without qualification carries penalties and can bar access to the courts.
- Trap. A remote-employee state nobody considered.
[ ] Where the name is unavailable in a foreign state, register an assumed name for that state and record which name governs where.
- Why. Contracts, insurance certificates, bank records, and platform verification must match the right name per jurisdiction.
- Authority. See Platform Account Risk Checklist.
- Trap. A single "legal name" field in a CRM used for all fifty states.
[ ] Obtain business licenses, and record that they confer no name rights.
- Why. Clients routinely cite the license as proof of name rights. It is not.
- Trap. A licensing clerk's approval treated as clearance.
[ ] Use "Entity Name d/b/a Trade Name" on contracts.
- Why. It is correct everywhere, avoids the assumed-name enforceability traps, and identifies the corporate person.
- Trap. Contracts signed in the trade name alone.

Phase 7. Federal application and the digital layer

[ ] File the federal application, on an intent-to-use basis if not yet selling.
- Why. Constructive use runs from the filing date, which is the single most valuable thing in the sequence.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b); 15 U.S.C. § 1057(c).
- Trap. Waiting until launch, and losing months of priority for nothing.
[ ] [Gate] Name the applicant exactly as the owner.
- Why. An application filed in the wrong name is void ab initio and cannot be amended into correctness.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 2.32.
- Trap. The founder's name, a predecessor entity, or a trade name in the applicant field.
[ ] Draft the identification against what the business does and realistically plans.
- Trap. An identification copied from a competitor's registration.
[ ] Plan the specimen before it is needed.
- Why. Trade name use — letterhead, signature block, return address — is the classic specimen refusal.
- Authority. 37 C.F.R. § 2.56. See Specimen Refusals Guide; Statement of Use Filing Checklist.
- Trap. A beautiful letterhead submitted for goods.
[ ] Decide about state trademark registration deliberately.
- Why. Useful for a genuinely intrastate business or as a bridge; it is not a substitute for federal registration.
- Trap. A client who files in the state and believes they are protected nationally.
[ ] Register the exact-match domain plus variants, in the entity's name with role contacts.
- Authority. See Domain Portfolio Checklist.
- Trap. A domain in a developer's personal account.
[ ] Claim handles on every platform, registered to a role address.
- Trap. Handles on a marketing hire's personal email.
[ ] Record with the Trademark Clearinghouse once registered, where the portfolio justifies it.
- Authority. See After .com.
- Trap. Expecting it to function as enforcement. It is notice.
[ ] Calendar the maintenance deadlines the day the mark registers.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1058; 15 U.S.C. § 1059; 15 U.S.C. § 1065.
- Trap. A registration lost to a missed Section 8 filing, taking brand-registry enrollments with it.

Phase 8. Conflicts, letters, and coexistence

[ ] Pull the sender's registration and read the identification of goods and services.
- Why. The gap between what they registered and what you do is where the negotiation lives.
- Trap. Reading the demand letter's characterization instead of the registration.
[ ] Check whether the registration is live and maintained.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1058.
- Trap. Conceding to a registration that lapsed two years ago.
[ ] Assess vulnerability to expungement or reexamination for nonuse.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1066a; 15 U.S.C. § 1066b. See Cleaning the Register.
- Trap. Assuming a registered mark is a used mark.
[ ] Establish your own first use with contemporaneous documentation.
- Why. Earlier use than the sender's filing date yields a limited-area defense at minimum.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(5). See Common Law Priority Evidence Checklist.
- Trap. Recollection instead of dated invoices and advertising.
[ ] Evaluate coexistence before evaluating litigation.
- Why. Different goods, channels, or territories usually support an agreement, and most conflicts resolve this way.
- Authority. See Concurrent Use and Consent Agreement Checklist; Bringing a Concurrent Use Proceeding.
- Trap. Treating a first letter as a declaration of war.
[ ] If the answer is to change the name, clear the replacement fully.
- Why. A hurried replacement search is how businesses rebrand twice.
- Authority. See Executing a Rebrand.
- Trap. Choosing the second name in a week under pressure.
[ ] Keep the entity name where harmless; change what consumers see.
- Why. A court can enjoin use in commerce; that is not an order to dissolve a corporate record.
- Trap. Dissolving and reforming for no reason, breaking contracts and licenses in the process.
[ ] Budget the operational tail of any name change.
- Why. Signage, packaging, listings, verification records, insurance, and banking all carry the old name.
- Authority. See Brand Transition Toolkit.
- Trap. Budgeting the legal fee and not the operations.

Harrowgate, Phase 8. A common law bakery in two counties surfaced in the full search. Rather than wait for a letter, counsel sent a friendly proposal after registration: different goods, different counties, agreed presentations. Signed in three weeks. The bakery had never heard of the client and was relieved to be asked rather than sued.

Phase 9. Entity-type and structure variations

The base checklist assumes a single-state LLC or corporation with one brand. Six structures need extra boxes.

Sole proprietorships and general partnerships

[ ] Confirm whether an assumed name filing is required for a person operating under anything other than their own surname.
- Why. Most states require it, and sole proprietors are the group least likely to know.
- Trap. "It's just me" as a reason to skip the filing that lets you sue on your invoices.
[ ] Advise on the entity question separately from the name question.
- Why. Personal liability, not naming, is the reason to form an entity — but the naming work should be done once, for the entity you will actually have.
- Trap. Clearing and registering a mark for a sole proprietor who forms an LLC six months later, creating an assignment that nobody records. 15 U.S.C. § 1060.

Professional entities

[ ] Confirm the entity type is one the profession permits, and that the name complies with board rules.
- Why. PCs, PLLCs, and LLPs carry naming constraints that ordinary entities do not.
- Trap. A name implying a partnership among practitioners who are not partners.
[ ] Check the rules on retaining a departed or deceased practitioner's name.
- Why. Permitted in some professions and jurisdictions, restricted in others, and often time-limited.
- Trap. A firm name that became noncompliant on the day a named partner left.

Nonprofits

[ ] Confirm name availability under the nonprofit corporation statute, which often has its own restricted words.
- Trap. Terms implying a governmental or accredited status.
[ ] Clear the name for trademark purposes anyway.
- Why. Nonprofit status is not a defense to infringement, and charitable branding conflicts are common.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1114; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
- Trap. Assuming good intentions supply a defense.
[ ] Check charitable solicitation registration requirements in each state of fundraising.
- Trap. A name used in a fundraising appeal in states where the organization is not registered to solicit.

Holding-company and multi-entity structures

[ ] [Gate] Decide the owning entity before filing, and document the license to operating entities.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1055; 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
- Trap. An intercompany license with no quality-control provision, which is a naked license inside your own group.
[ ] Record any assignment between entities promptly.
- Why. Recordation protects against a subsequent bona fide purchaser and keeps the chain clean for the next transaction.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1060. See Trademark Due Diligence Checklist.
- Trap. A restructuring that moved the mark on paper and never reached the register.

Multi-brand portfolios

[ ] Clear every sub-brand and product name, not just the house mark.
- Why. Product names are what competitors complain about, and they are the ones nobody clears.
- Trap. A carefully cleared house mark above twelve uncleared product names.
[ ] Decide house-brand versus multi-brand deliberately and write it down.
- Why. Drifting into a multi-brand structure multiplies clearance, registration, and maintenance costs invisibly.
- Trap. Product lines that acquire names from marketing without a clearance step.

Businesses that will license or franchise

[ ] Run the franchise analysis at the naming stage.
- Why. A trademark license plus significant control plus a required payment can be a franchise regardless of the label, and it affects entity structure.
- Authority. 16 C.F.R. Part 436. See When a Trademark License Becomes a Franchise; Brand Licensing Program Toolkit.
- Trap. Designing the naming and ownership structure for a single-location business that will have forty licensees in three years.

Phase 10. Maintenance: the annual name review

Names decay quietly. Fifteen minutes a year prevents most of it.

[ ] Confirm the entity is in good standing in every state of qualification.
- Trap. A lapse caused by a registered agent's notices going to an old address.
[ ] Confirm every assumed name filing is current, including renewals.
- Why. Assumed name filings expire in many states, often on a five-year cycle.
- Trap. An expired DBA discovered during a bank review.
[ ] Confirm the name on file matches the name in use.
- Why. Brands drift — a shortened form appears on the website, then on packaging, and the filings never follow.
- Trap. A trade name in daily use that no filing anywhere covers.
[ ] Check whether the mark as used still matches the mark as registered.
- Why. A materially altered mark may not be supported by the registration, and the specimen at renewal must show the registered mark.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1058; 37 C.F.R. § 2.56.
- Trap. A logo refresh that changed the mark without anyone filing a new application.
[ ] Confirm every new product name and sub-brand from the past year was cleared.
- Trap. The annual review being the first time anyone lists them.
[ ] Confirm domains and handles are renewed, in the entity's name, with role contacts.
- Authority. See Domain Portfolio Checklist.
- Trap. Auto-renew on an expired card.
[ ] Confirm the maintenance calendar for every registration is current.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1058; 15 U.S.C. § 1059.
- Trap. A calendar living with a departed paralegal.
[ ] Run a fresh watch on the marks, or confirm a watch service is running.
- Why. Conflicting applications are cheapest to stop at publication.
- Authority. 15 U.S.C. § 1063. See TTAB Practice Toolkit.
- Trap. A watch service subscribed to and never read.

Phase 11. The one-page client handout

Clients retain a short version far better than a long one. This is the page to send after the engagement, and it is worth reproducing verbatim.

The four names you have, and what each one does.

Entity name. On file with the state. Lets you exist as a company. Does not let you stop anyone.
Assumed name (DBA). A public-notice filing. Lets you operate and bank under a different name. Does not let you stop anyone.
Trade name. What you call yourself. Not filed anywhere by itself. Does not let you stop anyone, except through an unfair competition claim you would have to prove from scratch.
Trademark. Identifies the source of your goods or services. This is the only one that lets you stop a competitor, and registration is what makes it work nationally.

What the Secretary of State actually checked. Whether your name is distinguishable from other entity records in that one state's database. Not whether anyone else has trademark rights. Not other states. Not the federal register. The certificate is a receipt, not a clearance.

Three things to do this month.

Confirm the trademark application names the right owner — the entity, not you personally, and not a predecessor.
Confirm the domains and social handles are registered to the company, at a company email address, not to an individual.
Confirm your assumed name filings are current in every county and state where you operate, and that any required publication was completed.

Three things to do every year.

Check that the name you actually use still matches the name on file, and that any new product names were cleared.
Check that the entity is in good standing everywhere you have qualified.
Check that the trademark maintenance deadlines are on somebody's calendar — not a departed employee's.

If a letter arrives. Do not ignore it and do not agree to anything. Send it to counsel the same day. Most naming conflicts resolve by agreement rather than litigation, and the outcome usually turns on two questions: who used the name first, and how far apart the two businesses actually are in goods, channels, and geography. Both are answerable from documents you already have — if you kept them.

The single sentence worth remembering. State approval of a business name answers a filing-clerk's question about database records; whether you may lawfully use that name in the market is a different question, asked by a different system, and answered — sometimes expensively — by a court.

And a closing note for counsel on the economics. The entire sequence above — candidate generation through federal filing — is a fixed-fee engagement of a few weeks. The rebrand it prevents is a project of several months touching signage, packaging, listings, contracts, insurance, banking, and every platform verification record the business holds. That ratio is the argument, and it lands with founders in a way that citations do not. Lead with it, put it in the engagement letter, and keep the search documentation for as long as the client uses the name — because the day it becomes valuable is the day somebody asks what you knew and when.

One last practical note on records. Keep the clearance file — search reports, the written opinion, the client's recorded decision, and the dated screenshots of what the registers showed — for as long as the business uses the name, and then longer. It is small, it costs nothing to store, and it is the only contemporaneous evidence that will exist if the adoption is ever questioned. Businesses that discard it discover, years later, that the most important fact about their brand is one nobody can prove.

Key Authorities at a Glance

| Authority | Proposition | Phase | |---|---|---| | 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b) | Intent-to-use application | 7 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) | Deceptive matter; false connection | 1 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2) | Geographically descriptive | 1 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(4) | Primarily merely a surname | 1 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f) | Acquired distinctiveness | 1 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1055 | Related-company use | 5 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1057(c) | Constructive use from filing | 7 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1058 | Maintenance filings | 7, 8 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1059 | Renewal | 7 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1065 | Incontestability | 7 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1066a | Ex parte expungement | 8 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1066b | Ex parte reexamination | 8 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(5) | Limited-area prior user defense | 8 | | 37 C.F.R. § 2.32 | Application requirements | 7 | | 37 C.F.R. § 2.56 | Specimen requirements | 7 |

The five things people get wrong

One: they form first and clear later. Every other error on this list follows from that one. The entity formation is the cheap, fast, satisfying step, so it happens first, and by the time anyone thinks about trademarks the signage is up and the sunk cost is arguing.

Two: they treat the Secretary of State's approval as clearance. It is a mechanical comparison against one state's entity database. It is not a defense to infringement and it is not evidence of anything useful. See Trade Names, DBAs, and Entity Names.

Three: they file the assumed name late, in the wrong place, or not at all. County-level filings, newspaper publication deadlines, and statutes barring suit on contracts made under an unregistered name are all real, all boring, and all capable of causing serious problems at exactly the wrong moment.

Four: they name the wrong applicant. An application in the founder's name, a predecessor entity, or a trade name is void ab initio and cannot be fixed by amendment. 37 C.F.R. § 2.32. Confirm the owner against the formation certificate before filing.

Five: they submit letterhead as a specimen. Trade name use is not trademark use, and the refusal that follows costs months. Plan the specimen when you draft the application, not when the notice of allowance arrives. See Choosing and Clearing an Entity Name, Trade Name, and DBA.