Common Grounds for Refusal of a Trademark
ATTORNEYS IN DALLAS
The common grounds for trademark refusal, including likelihood of confusion with existing marks, descriptiveness, geographic descriptiveness, geographically deceptively misdescriptive marks, surnames, and marks that are primarily ornamental or informational, and the importance of addressing these issues in the Office Action response to ensure successful registration on the Principal Register of the USPTO.
Common Grounds for Refusal of a Trademark
The Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure ("TMEP") Chapter 1200 provides an extensive list of substantive grounds for refusing a trademark application. A trademark refusal is typically conveyed in the Office Action issued by the assigned Examining Attorney. Within the Office Action, the Examiner will outline the specific refusal(s), which may encompass multiple grounds, and provide a rationale supported by relevant case law. As the applicant, you or your trademark attorney will have the opportunity to respond to the refusal. This section will discuss the most frequently encountered grounds for trademark refusal.
Likelihood of Confusion
During the review process of a trademark application by the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO"), a search is conducted to identify conflicting marks. A mark in the application is deemed "conflicting" if it presents a "likelihood of confusion" with a registered trademark. In the Office Action, the registered mark(s) will be cited, and it will be explained how the proposed mark resembles the cited mark, leading to potential consumer confusion, mistaken identity, or deception regarding the source of goods and/or services offered by the applicant and registrant. The determination of likelihood of confusion is guided by the factors outlined in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973). The key factors considered include the similarity of the trademarks and the commercial relationship between the goods and services. Generally, if the marks are similar and the goods and services are related, it is likely that consumers would mistakenly believe that the goods and services originate from the same source.
Merely Descriptive and Deceptively Misdescriptive
When a mark directly communicates a quality, purpose, function, feature, characteristic, ingredient, or use of the goods or services, it will be considered merely descriptive and will be rejected for registration on the principal register of the USPTO. Similarly, if a trademark inaccurately describes a quality, purpose, function, feature, characteristic, ingredient, or use of the goods or services, and such misrepresentation could reasonably deceive or mislead consumers, the mark will be refused as deceptively misdescriptive. It is important to note that one of the goals of trademark law is to safeguard consumers from being misled or confused.
Primarily Geographically Descriptive and Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive
When it comes to refusals based on geographic descriptiveness, the USPTO will assess three factors. First, it will determine if the primary significance of the mark is a well-known geographic location to consumers. Second, it will consider whether consumers are likely to believe that the goods or services originate from that geographic location. Lastly, it will verify if the goods or services actually come from the named geographic location. If these three criteria are met, the mark will be rejected for registration on the principal register.
In the case of geographically deceptively misdescriptive refusals, the first two criteria mentioned earlier must be satisfied. Additionally, it must be shown that the goods or services don't originate from the named geographic location in the mark, and that the misrepresentation would significantly influence a substantial portion of relevant consumers when making their purchasing decisions. For instance, if the mark "TRUE FLORIDA" is used for oranges that are not actually grown in Florida, it may be deemed geographically deceptively misdescriptive.
- 66(a) Applications
- Abandoning a Trademark Application or Withdrawing a TTAB Proceeding
- Abandonment and Nonuse
- Abbreviations as Trademarks
- Accelerated Case Resolutions
- Acquired Secondary Trademark Meaning
- Amending Trademark Application
- Assigning a Trademark
- Assigning a Trademark and the Intent to Use Application
- Avoiding Fraud on Trademark Applications
- Avoiding Trademark Litigation
- Basis for Filing a Trademark
- Benefits of Registering a Trademark
- Bona Fide Intent to Use
- Celebrity Trademarks
- Challenging the Relatedness Factor
- Challenging Trademark Rights
- Claims in a Notice of Opposition
- Co-Existence Agreements
- Common Law Trademarks in the Internet Era
- Common Law Use and Priority
- Conflicting Marks
- Consent Agreements
- Constructive Use Priority
- Dates of Use
- Defenses in Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings
- Descriptive or Generic Trademarks
- Design Marks
- Design Trademarks
- Determining Trademark Similarities
- Discovery in TTAB Proceedings
- Dividing a Trademark Application
- Drawing Page
- Electronic Display Specimens for Trademarks
- Evidence in TTAB Proceedings
- Evidence of Acquired Distinctiveness
- Expediting Trademark Cancellation for Nonuse or Abandonment
- Extending Time to Oppose
- Factors of a Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
- False Suggestions of Connection
- Famous Trademarks and Likelihood of Confusion and Dilution
- Filing an Opposition or Cancellation Proceedings
- First Sale Doctrine
- Five Years of Use
- Foreign Trademark Rights
- Generic Trademarks
- Geographic Trademarks
- Hiring Trademark Counsel
- Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks
- Incontestability of U.S. Trademarks
- International Trademark Filings
- Joint Trademark Ownership
- Lawful Use of a Trademark in Commerce
- Likelihood of Confusion Analysis
- Likelihood of Confusion Refusal
- Merely Descriptive Trademarks
- Multiple Bases for a Trademark Application
- Overcoming and Ornamentation Trademark Refusal
- Personal Name Trademarks
- Principal and Supplemental Registers
- Protecting Single Creative Works
- Recording Trademark Assignments
- Refusal of a Trademark
- Refusing a Trade Dress Application
- Registering a Certification Trademark
- Registering a Service Mark
- Registering a Trademark That Lacks Inherent Distinctiveness
- Registering an International Trademark
- Relatedness of Goods or Services
- Request for Reconsideration in Trademark Office Action
- Requirements for International Trademark Application
- Revive an Abandoned Trademark Application
- Secondary Meaning
- Source Confusion
- Special Trademark Applications
- Standard Character and Special Format Marks
- Standing in Opposition and Cancellation Proceedings
- State Trademark Registration
- Statement of Use Extensions
- Tacking Doctrine
- Technical Trademark Use
- The Supplemental Register
- Trade Dress
- Trade Dress Application
- Trademark Application
- Trademark Clearance Searches
- Trademark Disclaimers
- Trademark Licensing
- Trademark of Authors, Performing Artists, and Characters
- Trademark Ownership
- Trademark Protection In Texas
- Trademark Settlements
- Trademark Specimens
- Trademark Specimens
- Trademark Use by Related Company
- Trademark Use in Advertising
- Trademark Use in Commerce
- Trademarking a Distinctive Mark
- Trademarking a Hashtag
- Trademarks for Musical Artists
- TTAB Discovery Rules
- TTAB Proceedings
- U.S. Service Mark
- U.S. Trade Dress
- Understanding Trade Channels
- Unitary U.S. Trademark
- Universal Symbols as Trademarks
- Using Secondary Sources
- What is an Ex Parte Appeal?
- Where to Register a Trademark
- Who Must File a Trademark?
Primarily Merely a Surname
If the main significance of a trademark is a surname or last name, it will be rejected for registration on the principal register.
Ornamentation
If a mark is perceived as primarily ornamental or informational rather than a source indicator, an Examining Attorney will refuse it for registration, as it fails to function as a trademark to distinguish the applicant's goods. For instance, if larger letters, designs, or slogans are prominently displayed across the front of a T-shirt, sweatshirt, or hat, they may be considered decorative features rather than indications of the source.
Contact an Experienced Trademark Attorney
If you need legal advice regarding your trademark rights, assistance with trademark prosecution, or representation in a domain name dispute, contact Wilson Whitaker Rynell. Our team of trademark lawyers has extensive experience in all aspects of trademark and copyright law, including the filing of trademark applications and representing clients in defense or prosecution before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
CLIENT MATTERS
5,000+
YEARS OF SERVICE
25+
Award Winning
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Expert Team
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Quality Representation
