Recommending alternate TM name in light of/along with TM opinion

[BobRoberts]

When rendering a TM opinion, where the opinion may be "very close call" or "don't use"- do you ever offer an alteration that may work(assume that you provide the caveat that the altered mark was not searched, and there's a _____ % chance that conflicting marks would have ben identified by the current search)?  Or... go back and say if you add some additional verbage to the mark, it may have an improved chance of avoiding infringment of existing marks (i.e.., less chance of finding Likelihood of Confusion- and include same caveat that mark+more verbage not searched, but ____ % chance that problematic marks would have been identified)?

Thanks...

[JSonnabend]

If you provide actual odds, how would anyone know whether the odds were correct.  Even a 99% chance of success has a 1% chance of failure.

As for me, I never provide written odds, but I verbally give clients "rough" probabilities.

- Jeff

[BobRoberts]

Good point Jeff...  As you mentioned, wording like 'there's a strong chance that the prior search would have identified problematic marks, but there's always a small chance that a potentially problematic mark was not identified by the prior search' would be better.

Thanks