Why is Being ‘Inherently Distinctive’ Important to a Trademark or Service Mark?

A Strong Trademark is a Bigger Piece of Intellectual Property.

An inherently distinctive trademark is a strong trademark. An inherently distinctive trademark may be registered on the USPTO Trademark Principal Register, qualifies for more protection under more federal, state and common law and is stronger for use in business to promote authenticity and for expanding product lines. The distinctiveness of a trademark may also help protect the mark from problems with conflicting marks and counterfeiting.

The stronger the trademark the greater protection received from the courts. Nike, Inc. v. Just Did It Enterprises, 6 F.3d at 1231 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1993) quoting Squirtco v. Seven-Up Co., 628 F.2d at 1091 (8th Cir.1980). This factor [trademark strength] can also include the likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Nike, Inc. v. Just Did It Enterprises, 6 F.3d at 1231 (C.A.7 (Ill.), 1993) quoting Grey v. Campbell Soup Co., 650 F.Supp. at 1173 (C.D.Cal.1986). See StrongTrademark.com for more information.

The opposite of an inherently distinctive mark is a descriptive mark or a mark that does not function as a mark such as an ornamental mark. Descriptive marks are much harder to protect, they must first acquire secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness:

"Descriptive" marks "merely describe a function, use, characteristic, size, or intended purpose of the product," such as YELLOW PAGES telephone directories and 5 MINUTE glue. And this class of marks includes those that are geographically descriptive, such as BOSTON beer produced by a Boston-based brewer, BANK OF AMERICA, and MISS U.S.A. No descriptive mark can serve as a valid trademark without evidence of secondary meaning. Barcelona.com, Inc. v. Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento De Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617, 629 (4th Cir.2003). "Secondary meaning" in connection with geographically descriptive marks means that the mark no longer causes the public to associate the goods with the geographical location, but to associate the goods with a particular product or source of the product. See Resorts of Pinehurst, Inc. v. Pinehurst Nat'l Corp., 148 F.3d 417, 421 (4th Cir.1998); Boston Beer Co. Ltd. P'ship v. Slesar Bros. Brewing Co., 9 F.3d 175, 181 (1st Cir.1993); see generally 2 McCarthy, supra, §§ 15:1-5. In this manner, KENTUCKY fried chicken and AMERICAN airlines are geographically descriptive marks that have established secondary meanings in consumers' minds, causing consumers to recognize a brand or source of fried chicken or air travel, rather than the places, Kentucky and America. OBX-Stock, Inc. v. Bicast, Inc., 558 F.3d 334, 339 (4th Cir.2009).

"Another test of descriptive-suggestive connotations is to determine the extent to which other sellers have used the mark on similar merchandise. That is, if others are in fact using the term to describe their products, an inference of descriptiveness can be drawn." Cutter Labs., Inc. v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 189 U.S.P.Q. 108 (T.T.A.B. 1975); McCarthy § 11:69.

Descriptiveness is construed broadly. [See Zatarains, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786, 217 USPQ 988 (5th Cir.1983)]. Indicia include: (1) the mark's dictionary definition corresponds with its meaning and context; (2) upon hearing the mark, one need not use "imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the nature of goods;" (3) "competitors would be likely to need the terms used in the trademark in describing their products;" and (4) others have used the term in marketing a similar service or product.  Xtreme Lashes, LLC v. Xtended Beauty, Inc., 576 F.3d 221, 227 (5th Cir.2009).

Trademark refusal office actions are a big problem with merely descriptive trademarks that are not inherently distinctive. Overcoming the merely descriptive or descriptiveness refusals may require both effective arguments and evidence, sometimes a lot of evidence. Sometimes a trademark applicant’s mark is so highly descriptive that the prima facie case of distinctiveness which must be established by applicant requires better evidence or more evidence because the purchasing public will be less apt to view the term as a trademark. The “greater the degree of descriptiveness the term has, the heavier the burden to prove it has attained secondary meaning.” See In re Bongrain International Corp., 894 F.2d 1316, 1317 n. 4, 13 USPQ2d 1727, 1728 n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

In the illustration below, acquired distinctiveness  (red arrow) can potentially move a trademark’s distinctiveness to the left but note that no amount of acquired distinctiveness can turn a generic mark into a distinctive mark. See more on acquired distinctiveness for Section 2(f) or 2(f) in part at Trademark2f.com.

NEED HELP to APPLY for a TM?  

Contact Not Just Patents for these and other issues when APPLYING for a TM:

Call us at 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal.

Call 1-651-500-7590 or email WP@NJP.legal for Responses to Office Actions; File or Defend an Opposition or Cancellation; Trademark Searches and Applications; Send or Respond to Cease and Desist Letters.

For more information from Not Just Patents, see our other sites:      

Steps to a Patent    How to Patent An Invention

Should I Get A Trademark or Patent?

Trademark e Search    Strong Trademark     Enforcing Trade Names

Common Law Trademarks  Trademark Goodwill   Abandoned Trademarks

Chart of Patent vs. Trade Secret

Patent or Trademark Assignments

Trademark Disclaimers   Trademark Dilution     TSDR Status Descriptors

Oppose or Cancel? Examples of Disclaimers  Business Cease and Desist

Patent, Trademark & Copyright Inventory Forms

Verify a Trademark  Be First To File    How to Trademark Search

Are You a Content Provider-How to Pick an ID  Specimens: webpages

How to Keep A Trade Secret

State & Federal Trade Secret Laws

Using Slogans (Taglines), Model Numbers as Trademarks

Which format? When Should I  Use Standard Characters?

Opposition Pleadings    UDRP Elements    

Oppositions-The Underdog    Misc Changes to TTAB Rules 2017

How To Answer A Trademark Cease and Desist Letter

Converting Provisional to Nonprovisional Patent Application (or claiming benefit of)

Trademark Refusals    Does not Function as a Mark Refusals

Insurance Extension  Advantages of ®  ApplyTM.com

How to Respond to Office Actions

What is a Compact Patent Prosecution?

Acceptable Specimen       Supplemental Register   $224 Statement of Use

How To Show Acquired Distinctiveness Under 2(f)

Trademark-Request for Reconsideration

Why Not Just Patents? Functional Trademarks   How to Trademark     

What Does ‘Use in Commerce’ Mean?    

Grounds for Opposition & Cancellation     Cease and Desist Letter

Trademark Incontestability  TTAB Manual (TBMP)

Valid/Invalid Use of Trademarks     Trademark Searching

TTAB/TBMP Discovery Conferences & Stipulations

TBMP 113 Service of TTAB Documents  TBMP 309 Standing

Examples and General Rules for Likelihood of Confusion

USPTO Search Method for Likelihood of Confusion

Examples of Refusals for Likelihood of Confusion   DuPont Factors

What are Dead or Abandoned Trademarks?

 Can I Use An Abandoned Trademark?

Color as Trade Dress  3D Marks as Trade Dress  

Can I Abandon a Trademark During An Opposition?

Differences between TEAS and TEAS plus  

How do I Know If Someone Has Filed for An Extension of Time to Oppose?

Ornamental Refusal  Standard TTAB Protective Order

SCAM Letters Surname Refusal

What Does Published for Opposition Mean?

What to Discuss in the Discovery Conference

Descriptive Trademarks Trademark2e.com  

Likelihood of Confusion 2d  TMOG Trademark Tuesday

Acquired Distinctiveness  2(f) or 2(f) in part

Merely Descriptive Trademarks  

Merely Descriptive Refusals

ID of Goods and Services see also Headings (list) of International Trademark Classes

Register a Trademark-Step by Step  

Protect Business Goodwill Extension of Time to Oppose

Geographically Descriptive or Deceptive

Change of Address with the TTAB using ESTTA

Likelihood of confusion-Circuit Court tests

Pseudo Marks    How to Reply to Cease and Desist Letter

Not Just Patents Often Represents the Underdog

 Overcome Merely Descriptive Refusal   Overcome Likelihood Confusion

Protecting Trademark Rights (Common Law)

Steps in a Trademark Opposition Process   

Section 2(d) Refusals   FilingforTrademark.com

Zombie Trademark  

What is the Difference between Principal & Supplemental Register?

Typical Brand Name Refusals  What is a Family of Marks? What If Someone Files An Opposition Against My Trademark?

How to Respond Office Actions  

DIY Overcoming Descriptive Refusals

Trademark Steps Trademark Registration Answers TESS  

Trademark Searching Using TESS  Trademark Search Tips

Trademark Clearance Search   DIY Trademark Strategies

Published for Opposition     What is Discoverable in a TTAB Proceeding?

Counterclaims and Affirmative Defenses

©2008-2017 All Rights Reserved. Not Just Patents LLC, PO Box 18716, Minneapolis, MN 55418.

Call: 1-651-500-7590 or email: WP@NJP.legal. This site is for informational purposes only and is provided without warranties, express or implied, regarding the information's accuracy, timeliness, or completeness and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney/client relationship exists without a written contract between Not Just Patents LLC and its client. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Privacy Policy Contact Us


Not Just Patents®

Aim Higher® Facts Matter

Not Just Patents® LLC

PO Box 18716

Minneapolis, MN 55418