Back to Office actions

The USPTO has dismissed my trademark for being geographically descriptive. What should I do?

Written by Jan Buza

Co-founder of Trama

If you’ve received an office action based on geographic descriptiveness, you should review the examiner’s arguments and the evidence they cited in the OA. Your response should then address their specific reasoning.

Arguing against the geographic descriptiveness, for example, if the term has a well-established brand meaning in addition to its geographic meaning, or the geographic element is not dominant in the mark, you should argue against the finding directly. If the mark has been in long and exclusive commercial use and consumers associate it with a specific source rather than a place, submit evidence of acquired distinctiveness. If neither argument is strong, amending to the Supplemental Register avoids a final refusal while preserving the application.

Related questions

Stories of our clients: SquidWeb

SquidWeb represents a single solution enterprise software encompassing every tool needed by event staffing companies to smoothly run business - and will be developed now to an industry-independent ERP system. In-depth automation, time savings through effective collaboration and service guarantee make SquidWeb stand out, contributing towards the success the company has achieved over the last 2 decades. The full story of SquidWeb’s origin dating back to the student days of its founder Simon Stürtz is truly inspiring and so are the current brand protection efforts that we explore together with Kristina Huch.

Stories of our clients: Cyber Expedite

“Our goal at Cyber Expedite™ is to modernise the cyber security service procurement industry, to help organisations answer one simple question: I know I need a security service; I just don’t know what to ask for and who provides that service. We put so much effort into trading names and reviewing web domain registrations etc, why would you not want to protect that?” Cyber Expedite, founded by Niall McEvoy, seeks to add value to every organisation by simplifying the scoping and delivery of cyber security solutions and services.

Perceived similarity of trademarks: Lessons from Starbucks trademark disputes

One of the most common reasons for trademark disputes has to do with the perceived similarity between existing trademarks. The two trademarks are considered “similar” if they share common characteristics connected to their appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and if they are used for related goods or services. This is seen as a problem from brand perspective because the consumers might believe that the owners of the two trademarks are related, affiliated, connected, or that the goods or services originate from the same source.