Applegate Legal Services Trademark Notice: Same Letter, Same Phone Number as Hear Law

Yesterday a successful cybersecurity firm forwarded us an email. It was headed “Formal Notice Regarding Potential Business Name Rights”, it was signed by a “Registered IP Solicitor” at Applegate Legal Services, and it gave the firm 72 hours to respond about a trademark application for its own company name. Its consultant, who investigates business fraud for a living, recognised it straight away. As he put it, they emailed the wrong person.

Even cybersecurity firms get these. And this one is worth a closer look, because the phone number on it is the same number that appeared on the Hear Law notice we wrote about a week ago.

Is Applegate Legal Services a real law firm?

Yes. Applegate Legal Services Ltd is on the SRA register as a recognised body, authorised on 28 September 2026, and “Applegate Legal Services” and “Applegate Legal” are its registered trading names. The address on the notice, in Hevingham near Norwich, is the firm’s genuine head office on its SRA record and its genuine registered office at Companies House. It has no published regulatory decisions.

The firm’s SRA record lists no website, email address or phone number.

What did the notice say?

It said a proposed application for the recipient’s company name was going through “pre-filing due diligence and verification procedures”, cited sections 5, 5(4)(a) and 38 of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the Trade Marks Rules 2008, said trademarks go to whoever files first, and asked for a reply within 72 hours. It was signed:

[Applegate Legal Services] Helen Laver, Registered IP Solicitor. Phone: +44 2039966093. Address: Dairy Barn Valley Farm, Holt Road, Hevingham, Norwich, NR10 5NW, England. SRA: 581793. Website: https://applegatelegalservices.co.uk/

The square brackets around the firm’s name are in the original. The full email, redacted, is at the foot of this page.

What do the registers show?

The website was a day old. applegatelegalservices.co.uk was registered at 7.26pm on 19 October 2026. The notice was sent at 11.00am the next morning, about fifteen and a half hours later. A free WHOIS lookup shows the date to anyone who checks.

The phone number is Hear Law’s. +44 2039966093 is on the Applegate notice and on every page of the Applegate website. It is the same number that was on the Hear Law notice and the hearlaw.co.uk website last week.

The website sits on the same server as the Hear Law one. Both domains point to the same web server address, use the same email set-up, and were bought through the same registrar, Dynadot, on the same Namecheap shared hosting.

It appeared the day the Hear Law website disappeared. hearlaw.co.uk was taken offline early on the morning of 19 October 2026: the registry record shows the domain on hold with its nameservers removed. applegatelegalservices.co.uk was registered that evening.

The signatory is not at the firm. The SRA register lists one regulated person at Applegate Legal Services Ltd, and it is not Helen Laver. Companies House does not list her as an officer of the company.

The SRA number is not the firm’s. The notice quotes 581793. That is the personal SRA number of a solicitor called Helen Laver, admitted in 2015, who holds a current practising certificate and has no published decisions. Under “where this person works”, her record says: “There are currently no practices displayed for this person. This may be because they are not practising or because our policy is not to publish their contact details.” The register does not link her to Applegate Legal Services Ltd, and it neither confirms nor rules out any connection with this email. We think her name and number have been used in the same way as the firm’s name, as real solicitors’ were in the RSK Legal, Fenrick & Stone and Hear Law notices, and we make no suggestion that she had anything to do with it.

This website is not on the firm’s SRA record. The record lists no website at all.

The website says it is not a law firm. Applegate Legal Services Ltd is an SRA-authorised law firm. The terms and conditions on applegatelegalservices.co.uk say: “We are not a law entity. We do not provide, and are not qualified to provide you with legal advice.” They describe the business as “a technology platform that aids in the creation of forms and not a law entity or legal service provider”. The notice comes from a “Trademark Division” and is signed by a “Registered IP Solicitor”.

The guarantees contradict the terms. The home page promises “100% Satisfaction Guaranteed” and a “100% Money Back Guarantee”. The terms say: “We, however, cannot guarantee that your mark will make it through and be approved even if you use our search services.” That sentence is word for word the one in the Hear Law terms.

The government fee is wrong. The terms give the UKIPO filing fee as “£199 per class”. GOV.UK lists £205 for an online application.

Nobody is named, and nothing is numbered. The site claims “teams of skilled solicitors and engineers”, but names no solicitor, director or engineer, and gives no SRA number, company number or VAT number. Its “Featured on” section shows four logos with no names. Its five reviews carry a first name and an initial each, and nothing else.

The email came from a subdomain the site never mentions. The site publishes info@applegatelegalservices.co.uk. The notice came from helen@ip.applegatelegalservices.co.uk, which runs its email through a different provider from the rest of the domain. The same set-up was used for Hear Law’s “notice.” address.

It was not sent from Norfolk. The email’s own technical headers record that it was sent from a Windows computer connected through Cyber Internet Services, an internet provider in Pakistan. The letter gives a farm address in Norfolk.

The recipient already owns its trademark. The notice asks whether the firm “may have used, or may presently be using” its own company name. It has owned a registered UK trademark for that name for several years. Nobody else has applied for it.

Why does it look so convincing?

For the same reason as last time. The firm’s name, trading name and address are real, because they were taken from the SRA register and Companies House. The solicitor is real, and so is her number. Anyone checking those details would find each one on a public register.

What does not hold up is how they fit together: a solicitor who is not at the firm, a number that is not the firm’s, a website the firm’s own record does not mention, and a phone number that was signing letters for a different law firm a week ago.

Four firms, one letter

This is the fifth copy of this notice we have seen in a month, sent in the names of four different law firms.

What ties Applegate to Hear Law is stronger than the template: the same phone number, the same web server, the same packages at £199, £299 and £449, and the same sentence in the terms. We do not know whether everyone using this letter is connected, and we are still gathering information. But the method has not changed. Find a law firm the SRA has just authorised, with no website on its record, and put its name, its address and a real solicitor’s number on a website bought the night before.

What does the notice get wrong about the law?

There is no pre-filing verification process at the UKIPO, and nothing obliges an applicant or their adviser to write to anyone before filing. Section 38 is about publication and the opposition window after it. Sections 5 and 5(4)(a) are relative grounds, raised by the owner of an earlier right after publication, not by a new applicant’s agent beforehand. The Trade Marks Rules 2008 contain no 72-hour anything.

This time the recipient already held a registration, which makes the letter’s question pointless. A registered owner does not need to prove prior use to anyone. If somebody files for a similar name, the owner can oppose it during the two months after it is published in the Trade Marks Journal.

Have we contacted the firm?

Yes. We have contacted the director of Applegate Legal Services Ltd. The firm is aware of the matter and is taking appropriate action. If the firm, or anyone named here, would like to respond, we will publish the response in full.

What does this mean for a new law firm?

This firm was authorised three weeks before somebody bought a domain in its name. Hear Law’s was used twelve days after authorisation. The years of training, the qualification, the application to the SRA, and then a stranger spends your reputation before you have built a website of your own.

If you have just set up a firm, three things help. Put your website on your SRA record as soon as you have one, because “is this website on the firm’s record?” is the first question anyone should ask. Publish a short warning page if your name is used, and have the copycat site taken down: a website takedown request to the host and registrar is usually the quickest route. And register your firm’s name as a UK trademark. Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Service does not strictly require one, but a firm with three weeks of trading has almost no goodwill to prove, and a registration is proof you simply hand over.

Is AI making these harder to spot?

Yes. This website is a copy of last week’s, with the name changed, and it was ready within hours. Polish is no longer a signal.

What still gives them away is the practice behind them: terms that say “we are not a law entity” on a law firm’s website, a signatory who is not on the firm’s list, a registration number that is not the firm’s, and a phone number that moves from one law firm to the next.

How do you spot your own name being used like this?

Nothing checks, when a domain is registered, whether the buyer has any right to the name. The first a business usually hears is when someone forwards a letter and asks whether it is really them. That is why TMH Monitoring covers domain registrations and social media accounts as well as the trademark registers. A trademark watch tells you about applications; it does not tell you about a domain registered on a Monday evening and emailing strangers on Tuesday morning.

What to look out for

• A deadline in hours. Trademark law does not work in 72-hour windows.
• A competing applicant who is never named. A real application has a number and an owner. Ask for them.
• An SRA number. Thirty seconds on the SRA register. Does it return a firm or a person? Is that person listed at the firm on the letter?
• The firm’s own record. Search the SRA register for the firm by name rather than following the link in the email. Does its record list the website the email came from?
• How old the website is. A free WHOIS lookup shows when a domain was registered. This one was registered the evening before.
• The phone number. Search it. This one had already signed letters for another firm.
• A correct address. It proves nothing. Registered addresses are public, and this one was accurate.

The same letter runs through our warnings on Hear Law, Fenrick & Stone and RSK Legal. Our guide on how to spot trademark scams before they cost you covers it in full, and the complete directory is at trademark scams.

What to do if you have had one

• Don’t reply to the deadline. Nothing happens at hour 73.
• Send it to us. Call 0161 833 5400 or forward it, and we will tell you what the registers show. No charge, no obligation.
• Report it. The IPO publishes guidance on misleading trademark payment requests and collects these at misleadinginvoices@ipo.gov.uk. If money has changed hands, contact Action Fraud on 0300 123 2040. If a law firm’s name or a solicitor’s number has been used, tell the SRA.
• Stop the letters arriving. Our Care of Address service puts our address on your trademark record instead of yours.

The email in full

Reproduced as it arrived. The recipient’s name and company name are redacted; everything else, including capitalisation and the square brackets in the signature, is exactly as sent.

From: helen@ip.applegatelegalservices.co.uk
Sent: Tuesday 20 October 2026, 11:00
To: [RECIPIENT REDACTED]
Subject: Formal Notice Regarding Potential Business Name Rights

Hi [NAME REDACTED],

This correspondence constitutes a formal verification notice issued by the Trademark Division of APPLEGATE LEGAL SERVICES LTD in relation to a proposed trademark application for the mark “[RECIPIENT’S COMPANY NAME]” which is presently undergoing our pre-filing due diligence and verification procedures prior to any formal submission to the UK Intellectual Property Office (“UKIPO”).

The proposed application remains under internal review and has not yet been submitted to the UKIPO. In accordance with our pre-filing due diligence obligations, and having regard to the Trade Marks Act 1994, including, where relevant, Sections 5, 5(4)(a) and 38, together with the Trade Marks Rules 2008, we are required to make reasonable enquiries to determine whether any earlier rights or competing commercial interests exist which may be material before our verification process is concluded.

Our enquiries indicate that you may have used, or may presently be using, the name “[RECIPIENT’S COMPANY NAME]” in the course of trade. We are therefore writing to provide you with an opportunity to clarify your position before the proposed application progresses further.

Our review specifically concerns:

• Potential prior use in the course of trade capable of giving rise to enforceable rights under Section 5(4)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994; and
• Any grounds which may be relevant under Section 5, including unregistered rights, trade names, goodwill, or other earlier interests.

Accordingly, we request that you confirm, within 72 hours of receipt of this notice, whether:

• You or your organisation have used, or are presently using, the name “[RECIPIENT’S COMPANY NAME]” within the United Kingdom; and/or
• You assert any legal, commercial, equitable or other protectable interest in that name.

If you consider that the proposed application conflicts with any earlier rights held by you, we invite you to provide a written response together with any supporting evidence you wish us to take into account before our verification process is concluded.

Please note:

• This notice forms part of our pre-filing verification process and is intended to ensure that any apparent prior user has the opportunity to clarify their position before the proposed application progresses.
• In the absence of a response within the above timeframe, our verification process will be concluded on the basis of the information available to us at that time.
• If no competing rights are identified during that process, the proposed application may proceed in accordance with the instructions received.
• Once an application has been filed, any issues relating to earlier rights may need to be addressed through the procedures provided under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and the applicable UKIPO process.

You may also wish to note that the UK trade mark system generally operates on a first-to-file basis, subject to any earlier rights recognised under the Trade Marks Act 1994. Accordingly, if you are actively trading under the name and wish to formalise or protect any rights you consider you have acquired through prior use, you should notify us within the above timeframe so that your position may be taken into account before our verification process is concluded.

For compliance, audit and evidential purposes, all communications relating to this matter should be made in writing.

This matter is presently under verification. We should therefore be grateful to receive your response within the stated timeframe to enable the verification process to be concluded before the proposed application progresses further.

Yours faithfully,

[Applegate Legal Services]
Helen Laver
Registered IP Solicitor
Phone: +44 2039966093
Address: Dairy Barn Valley Farm, Holt Road, Hevingham, Norwich, NR10 5NW, England
SRA: 581793
Website: https://applegatelegalservices.co.uk/

Have you had one of these?

We build these pages from what people forward to us, and this one came from a firm that does this kind of investigation for a living. If something like this has landed in your inbox, send it over, redact whatever you like, and we will look into it properly.

Questions about this

Did Applegate Legal Services send trademark notices about business names?

We cannot say who sent them. Applegate Legal Services Ltd is a genuine law firm on the SRA register, authorised in September 2026, and its SRA record lists no website. The notice came from applegatelegalservices.co.uk, a domain registered the evening before, and was signed by a solicitor the register does not list at the firm, using her personal SRA number. The website's own terms say it is not a law entity, and its phone number is the one used on the Hear Law notice a week earlier.

Answered by Jonathan Paton, Founder & CEO

Is the Applegate Legal Services notice connected to Hear Law?

The two websites share a phone number, a web server, an email set-up, a registrar, their prices and sentences in their terms, and the notices are word for word the same. The Applegate website was registered on the evening of the day the Hear Law website was taken offline. We do not know who is behind either, and both law firms whose names were used are real and recently authorised.

Answered by Jonathan Paton, Founder & CEO

What should I do if I receive a notice giving me 72 hours to respond about my trademark?

Do not pay, share confidential information or reply in a hurry. A short deadline is designed to create pressure, and a genuine process allows time for checks. Verify the sender independently through the SRA register and Companies House, and check the trademark register for anything filed against your name, bearing in mind an application not yet filed would not appear. If you have a representative, forward the notice to them first.

Answered by Jonathan Paton, Founder & CEO

Written by

Jonathan Paton

Founder & CEO

Read more about Jonathan →