A practical guide for Indian businesses expanding into the U.S.

By Prashant Kumar

Introduction

Indian businesses entering the U.S. market regularly assume that trademark classes work the same way in both countries. After all, India and the U.S. are parties to the Nice Classification. Yet the similarities end there. Indian filings rely on broad descriptions that the Registry has historically accepted, whereas the USPTO demands precise, pre-approved identification language. As a result, Indian businesses often select the correct class number but describe their goods or services in a way the USPTO cannot accept — triggering objections, delays, and in some cases, complete rejection of the application.

This article offers a clear India–U.S. mapping of trademark classes, explains how the two systems differ, and highlights recurring mistakes made by Indian businesses selling on Amazon, Shopify, and other U.S. platforms. You may also find it useful to read our earlier guides on how Indian companies secure U.S. trademarks and our analysis of Amazon Brand Registry requirements for Indian sellers, which provide a broader compliance context.

How do U.S. trademark classes differ from Indian classes?

U.S. classes use the same Nice Classification numbers as India, but the USPTO requires far more specific wording. India allows broad descriptions, while the U.S. demands precise, activity-based terms from the USPTO ID Manual. So even if the class number matches, the description usually must be rewritten.

The deeper explanation

At a theoretical level, both systems use the Nice Classification’s 45 classes. In practice, however, the Indian Registry tends to accept wide-ranging, umbrella-style descriptions: phrases such as “software development services”, “retail services”, “nutritional supplements”, or “education services” commonly pass without challenge. Indian businesses are therefore accustomed to grouping all related activities under one broad heading.

The USPTO takes a very different approach. The class number is only a starting point; the real scrutiny is applied to the identification of goods and services. Each description must be extremely specific. If a business says “software services”, the USPTO expects clarity on whether the software is downloadable (Class 9), cloud-based (Class 42), embedded as firmware (Class 9), or provided as consultancy (Class 42). A similarly strict approach applies to advertising, retail, wholesale, educational services, skincare, nutraceuticals, and nearly every other commercial category.

Because of this, Indian applicants often face refusals even when the class number is technically correct. The problem lies in the phrasing — not the class itself. This difference is the single biggest cause of delays for Indian businesses filing under the U.S. system.

India–U.S. Trademark Class Mapping Explained (With Real Business Scenarios)

Software, Apps, SaaS and Digital Products – Classes 9 and 42

This category generates the highest number of errors by Indian tech companies. In India, Class 42 is frequently used for software development, software products, and app-based services. The U.S. system requires a split. Downloadable software and mobile apps belong in Class 9, while cloud software, SaaS and PaaS offerings fall under Class 42. A Noida-based logistics company recently filed its U.S. application in Class 42 using Indian-style wording such as “software application for shipment tracking”. The USPTO rejected this immediately because mobile apps are treated as downloadable goods, not services. The correction required a fresh filing in Class 9, adding months to their timeline.

E-commerce, Marketplace Services and Online Retail – Class 35

Indian businesses commonly assume that “online retail services” in India maps directly to Class 35 in the U.S., which is only partly correct. The U.S. demands a detailed account of what is being retailed. Generic terms like “e-commerce services” are not accepted. A Mumbai-based D2C beauty company faced a refusal because it simply stated “online retail services” in the description. The USPTO required a precise identification such as “online retail store services featuring skincare products”. The correction was simple but the delay was costly — especially for businesses relying on Amazon Brand Registry timelines.

Food, Nutrition, Supplements and Ayurveda – Classes 5, 29 and 30

Indian FMCG companies typically file broad nutritional claims like “health supplements” or “dietary preparations” in India’s Classes 5 or 29. The USPTO demands exact classification: capsules, powders, beverages, nutritive oils, fortified foods, or herbal preparations. A Hyderabad nutraceutical exporter recently discovered that their India-style class reference did not fit any acceptable U.S. identification. Their U.S. application had to be amended to specify the form, ingredients, and intended use. This level of granularity is essential for approval.

Fashion, Apparel and Accessories – Class 25

This is one of the few areas with relatively clean mapping between India and the U.S. But even here, the USPTO requires specificity. A Delhi fashion label filed “clothing” as a single term, which the Indian Registry normally accepts. In the U.S., this wording was deemed too broad. The Examiner insisted on identifying each category: “tops”, “bottoms”, “dresses”, “footwear”, or “outerwear”. Without this, the application could not proceed.

Education, Training, Consulting and Corporate Services – Classes 35, 41 and 42

Indian service businesses often rely on expansive descriptions such as “business consultancy services” or “educational services”. The USPTO insists on complete specificity regarding the nature of consultancy (management, HR, financial, marketing) and the kind of educational activity (workshops, online courses, certification programs). A Gurugram training company offering online career programs had to rewrite its entire identification because “educational services” was too vague.

Why Indian businesses misfile U.S. trademark classes so often

Most errors arise from relying on Indian conventions. Indian advisors, low-cost filing agents, and automated platforms often copy descriptions directly from Indian filings without adapting them to U.S. standards. In the U.S., the identification must be lifted from — or structured like — the USPTO’s ID Manual. Another common problem is assuming that Amazon Brand Registry treats all classes equally. In reality, Amazon verifies classes very strictly, especially for apparel, supplements, skin-care and electronics. Incorrect classification can delay Brand Registry access even if the trademark eventually gets approved.

For deeper compliance insights, businesses may also refer to our earlier piece on FEMA reporting for foreign subsidiariesor our guide on cross-border intellectual property protection, both of which touch on regulatory differences across jurisdictions.

How Indian businesses can correctly select U.S. trademark classes

The safest approach is a two-step process: first identify the correct class number using the Nice Classification, then rewrite the identification to match USPTO standards using the ID Manual. Each product or service must be described in clear, commercially meaningful language. For example, “software services” becomes “Software as a Service (SaaS) featuring software for accounting automation”; “health supplements” becomes “dietary supplements in capsule and powder form”; “e-commerce services” becomes “online retail store services featuring clothing”.

This disciplined approach dramatically reduces the risk of refusals and shortens the approval timeline — a major advantage when a business is preparing for product launches, Amazon enrolments or investor diligence.

Conclusion

Indian businesses expanding into the U.S. often underestimate how different the two trademark systems are. Class numbers may look identical, but the USPTO’s expectations for identification wording, granularity and accuracy are far higher. A strategically drafted U.S. application not only reduces the risk of refusals but also strengthens brand protection across Amazon, Shopify, enterprise contracts and U.S. distribution networks. As more Indian companies prioritise global expansion, understanding this India–U.S. mapping becomes an essential part of brand strategy and compliance planning.

About the Author

Prashant Kumar is a Company Secretary, Published Author, and Partner at Eclectic Legal, a full-service Indian law firm advising on corporate, regulatory, and transactional matters. He specialises in corporate governance, legal compliance, and brand protection, helping businesses build credible and sustainable legal foundations. He can be reached for discussions on brand strategy, compliance, and governance excellence via LinkedIn.