Wilson Whitaker Rynell

Experienced Lawyers

info@wwrlegal.com

a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it as the Wilson Whitaker Rynell Logo
972-248-8080 DALLAS
713-830-2207 HOUSTON
512-691-4100 AUSTIN
wilson whitaker rynell attorneys and counselors at law logo
972-248-8080 DALLAS
713-830-2207 HOUSTON
512-691-4100 AUSTIN

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.

a blue and orange check mark with the letter w on it for Wilson Legal Group Logo

Trademark Resources

  • 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

Trademark Resources

  • 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

You’ll find the support you need to ensure that things run smoothly. We’re here to help with all your legal needs.

Meet Our Team

View All
A building with a sign that says law offices on it
By John Wilson February 12, 2025
Strategic Legal Representation for Complex Business Litigation
A man riding a horse with a bull behind him
By John Wilson January 23, 2025
Understanding Writs of Execution in Texas: A Layperson’s Guide If a court determines that someone owes money to another party, the debtor—referred to as the "judgment debtor"—typically has 30 days to pay off the debt. If the debt remains unpaid after this time, the creditor, or "judgment creditor," can take legal action to enforce the payment through a Writ of Execution . This legal process, governed by Texas law, enables creditors to collect what they are owed by seizing and selling the debtor’s non-exempt assets. What Is a Writ of Execution? Under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 629 , a Writ of Execution is a court order that authorizes a sheriff or constable to seize the debtor’s property to satisfy the debt. This writ is an essential tool for creditors when voluntary repayment has not occurred. Once the writ is issued, it is handed over to a county constable or sheriff, who is required to act “without delay” in collecting the debtor’s real and personal property. The seized property is then sold, and the proceeds are used to pay off the debt. If multiple writs are filed against the same debtor, the assets are distributed in the order the writs were received. What Property Can Be Seized Under a Writ of Execution? Texas law is very specific about which types of property can and cannot be seized to satisfy a judgment. Exempt Property Certain assets are protected from seizure under Texas Property Code § 41.001. These include: The debtor’s homestead (primary residence) Wages earned from employment Professionally prescribed health aids Workers’ compensation benefits College savings plans Some insurance benefits Personal property valued up to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for families Unique to Texas, the law also protects items like family Bibles, two firearms, pets, and for rural residents, livestock (e.g., 12 head of cattle and 120 fowl). This extensive list reflects Texas's cultural heritage and values. Non-Exempt Property Assets that are generally not exempt include: Vacation homes Timeshares Pleasure boats Airplanes Jewelry exceeding certain value thresholds The specific procedures for seizing different types of property are detailed in Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 639 . Can a Writ of Execution Be Avoided? Judgment debtors have a few options to avoid the execution of a writ: Filing a Supersedeas Bond A supersedeas bond can temporarily halt enforcement of the writ. This bond, filed with the county clerk or justice of the peace, preserves the status quo while the debtor seeks further legal remedies. This option is governed by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 634 . Challenging the Execution Debtors can file a claim for wrongful execution in situations such as: The debt has already been paid Exempt property is being seized The levy is excessive Additionally, courts take extra care to protect property classified as a homestead under Texas Property Code § 41.002(c) . When only one spouse is responsible for the debt, Texas Family Code § 3.202(a) and related provisions provide guidance on levying against community or separate property. The Role of County Officials in Executing the Writ Once the writ is issued, its enforcement falls on county officials, typically a sheriff or constable. These officials must act in accordance with Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 34.072 , which requires them to execute the writ and report back to the court. They must: Give proper notice of the sale of seized property Ensure the proceeds are appropriately delivered to the creditor Avoid overstepping legal boundaries, such as seizing exempt property Failing to execute the writ properly can result in serious consequences, where a sheriff’s refusal to levy on a property initially listed as exempt (but later deemed abandoned) led to court action and damages awarded to the creditor. Preventing Fraudulent Transfers One challenge creditors face is when debtors attempt to hide or transfer assets to avoid collection. To address this, Texas follows the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act under Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 24.001 et seq .. This act provides legal remedies to creditors when a debtor’s transfer of assets is deemed fraudulent. Effect of a Defendant's Death on Writs of Execution Under Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 34.072 , the death of a defendant after a writ of execution is issued halts execution proceedings. However, any lien acquired from the writ's levy is still enforceable by the county court when paying off the deceased's debts. Why Proper Execution Of The Writ Is Crucial The rules for filing and serving a Writ of Execution are strict and detailed. Missteps, such as filing the writ in the wrong county, failing to serve the proper parties, or missing key deadlines, can lead to delays or even render the writ ineffective. Both creditors and debtors must ensure compliance with these rules to avoid unnecessary complications. For creditors, failure to properly enforce the writ could mean losing the opportunity to collect on a judgment. For debtors, not responding appropriately to a writ could result in the loss of valuable assets, even those that might have been exempt.
A sign that says jct 17 texas on it
By John Wilson January 17, 2025
Understanding Venue Selection and Motions to Dismiss in Texas Civil Litigation
Show More
Share by: