Descriptive trademarks walk a fine line in the branding world. They use common terms that directly describe a product’s features or functions, making them initially challenging to protect legally. Yet many household names have transformed these descriptive identities into powerful, protected assets. American Airlines, IBM, and Holiday Inn stand as testament to this remarkable evolution from descriptive phrases to distinctive brand identifiers. This comprehensive analysis explores how these companies navigated the complex trademark landscape, offering valuable insights for businesses considering descriptive naming strategies in today’s competitive marketplace.
Key Takeaways
- Descriptive trademarks directly describe product features, making them initially challenging to protect legally but capable of gaining distinctiveness through extensive use and consumer recognition.
- Brands like American Airlines, IBM, and Holiday Inn illustrate how descriptive names can evolve into strong, recognizable identities through strategic branding efforts.
- Understanding the registration process and the importance of proving acquired distinctiveness is crucial for businesses seeking to secure legal protection for their descriptive trademarks.
Real-World Examples of Descriptive Trademarks
In the complex landscape of intellectual property law, descriptive trademarks represent a fascinating paradox. These names or phrases directly communicate a product or service’s attributes or qualities—a naming strategy that initially seems advantageous for marketing but creates significant hurdles for legal protection. The challenge stems from their inherent lack of distinctiveness: why should one company exclusively own terms that simply describe what they sell?
Yet against these odds, certain brands have transformed inherently descriptive terms into powerful, legally protected identifiers. Through strategic branding, consistent market presence, and consumer education, companies like American Airlines, International Business Machines (IBM), and Holiday Inn have succeeded where many others have failed. Their evolution offers valuable lessons on how descriptive terms can transcend their literal meanings to become exclusive brand assets with substantial commercial value.
By examining these success stories alongside cases where descriptive marks failed to achieve protection, we gain critical insights into both the opportunities and obstacles that descriptive trademarks present in modern branding strategy.
American Airlines
American Airlines stands as a masterclass in transforming the descriptive into the distinctive. At first glance, the name appears almost generically straightforward—it literally describes an airline that is American. When the company adopted this name in the 1930s, trademark experts might have questioned its viability as a protectable asset. After all, shouldn’t any airline based in America be able to describe itself as an “American airline”?
What transformed this descriptive term into a powerful trademark was the company’s relentless commitment to brand building over decades. Through consistent visual identity (including its iconic red, white, and blue livery), massive advertising investments, and omnipresence throughout the American aviation landscape, the company methodically built consumer recognition that transcended the literal meaning of its name.
Today, when consumers encounter the phrase “American Airlines,” they don’t think generically about any airline from America—they immediately conjure specific associations with one particular carrier, its services, and experiences. This psychological shift represents the essence of “acquired distinctiveness” or “secondary meaning” in trademark law—the descriptive term now primarily signifies a specific brand source rather than merely describing a category of services.
This evolution demonstrates how strategic branding can elevate even the most straightforward descriptive term into a valuable intellectual property asset worth billions—a remarkable journey from generic description to globally recognized brand identifier.
International Business Machines (IBM)
Few examples illustrate the journey from descriptive name to iconic brand better than International Business Machines—now universally recognized as IBM. The original name couldn’t be more literal: a company that made business machines and sold them internationally. In today’s trademark landscape, such a descriptive name would likely face immediate rejection or, at minimum, significant hurdles to registration.
What’s particularly fascinating about IBM’s evolution is how the company strategically pivoted from its descriptive full name to its distinctive acronym as its product offerings expanded beyond mere “business machines.” This transformation wasn’t merely cosmetic—it reflected the company’s metamorphosis from a hardware manufacturer to a comprehensive technology solutions provider.
With annual revenue reaching approximately $61.9 billion in 2023, IBM’s century-long brand journey demonstrates how a company can outgrow its descriptive origins while retaining the equity built in its identity. The blue lettermark is now among the most recognizable corporate symbols globally, having completely transcended the literal meaning of the words it represents.
IBM’s success offers a valuable lesson for modern businesses considering descriptive names: even the most straightforward descriptive term can evolve into a distinctive brand asset when paired with consistent visual identity, market leadership, and strategic brand management over time. The key lies not in avoiding descriptiveness entirely, but in building robust secondary meaning that ultimately supersedes the literal interpretation of the words themselves.
Holiday Inn
At the beginning, the term Holiday Inn was thought to be too clear-cut and indicative of a place for travelers on vacation to qualify for trademark status. As time passed, consumers began to link this name specifically with a certain hotel brand. This association facilitated its eligibility for trademark protection by demonstrating acquired distinctiveness. The use of “Holiday Inn” is exclusively reserved for its own hotel and motel offerings, barring other entities in the hospitality industry from utilizing this designation.
Originally deemed descriptive due to its implication of lodgings suitable for leisure or holiday stays, holiday inn has through persistent and sole usage attained a secondary meaning. As such, despite being initially regarded as descriptive in nature, it has managed to secure registration as a protected trademark.
Tech Industry Descriptive Trademarks
The technology sector presents some of the most fascinating case studies in descriptive trademark evolution. In an industry where function often drives naming, companies frequently find themselves attracted to terms that directly communicate what their products do—creating both immediate consumer clarity and potential trademark vulnerability.
Microsoft Windows
Perhaps no tech trademark better illustrates the challenges and potential of descriptive naming than Microsoft Windows. When Microsoft launched its graphical operating system in 1985, “windows” was already a generic computing term describing the rectangular frames containing application content on screen. From a trademark perspective, this presented an enormous challenge—how could Microsoft claim exclusive rights to a term already in common use throughout the industry?
The ensuing trademark journey became one of the industry’s most contentious. In the early 2000s, Linux-based competitor Lindows.com directly challenged Microsoft’s trademark rights, arguing that “windows” was simply a generic descriptor for GUI operating systems. Court records revealed that Microsoft itself had used “windows” descriptively before launching Windows OS, raising “serious questions” about the mark’s validity.
Microsoft ultimately protected its valuable brand through both legal muscle and market dominance. The company reportedly paid $20 million to settle the Lindows case, while simultaneously building overwhelming market share (exceeding 90% at its peak). This combination of aggressive enforcement and ubiquitous market presence gradually transformed a once-descriptive computing term into Microsoft’s exclusive brand property.
The Windows case offers a crucial lesson: descriptive terms in technology can become distinctive trademarks, but the journey typically involves significant legal investment, market leadership, and vigilant enforcement over decades—a path only the strongest companies can successfully navigate.
Booking.com: A Landmark Victory for Descriptive Domain Names
The 2020 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Booking.com represents one of the most significant trademark victories for descriptive naming in the digital era. The case challenged a fundamental assumption in trademark law: that combining a generic term with “.com” would automatically result in a generic, unprotectable mark.
Booking.com’s path to trademark protection illustrates the evolving nature of brand perception in the internet age. The term “booking” itself is undeniably generic for reservation services—no company could claim exclusive rights to this word alone. The USPTO initially rejected the combined term “Booking.com” as equally generic for online hotel reservations, essentially arguing that adding “.com” to a generic word couldn’t create distinctiveness.
What ultimately reversed this decision was compelling evidence of consumer perception. Booking.com conducted extensive market research showing that 74.8% of consumers recognized “Booking.com” as a brand identifier rather than a generic category description. This consumer survey data proved decisive as the case advanced through appeals and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
The Court’s landmark 8-1 decision rejected the USPTO’s proposed rule that generic terms are automatically unregistrable. Instead, it emphasized that consumer perception should determine whether such terms function as trademarks. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, noted that “if consumers in fact perceive a term as the name of a service, then so be it.”
For businesses today, the Booking.com case offers a powerful strategic lesson: even inherently descriptive domain names can achieve trademark protection when backed by substantial evidence that consumers recognize them as brand identifiers rather than generic descriptions. The key lies not in the linguistic composition of the name itself, but in how effectively a company has established it as a source identifier in the minds of consumers.
OpenAI’s “GPT”: When Descriptive Terms Remain in the Public Domain
While Booking.com illustrates a descriptive term successfully transformed into protectable intellectual property, OpenAI’s 2024 attempt to trademark “GPT” demonstrates the opposite outcome—a cautionary tale about the high bar descriptive terms must clear to achieve trademark status.
“GPT” (standing for “Generative Pre-trained Transformer”) fundamentally describes the underlying technology behind OpenAI’s artificial intelligence models. Despite the company’s meteoric rise to prominence with ChatGPT, the USPTO ultimately refused registration of “GPT” alone as merely descriptive of AI models.
The patent office’s reasoning illuminates a core principle in trademark law: descriptive terms that identify a technology category rather than a specific source remain in the public domain. Even as OpenAI argued that “GPT” had become uniquely associated with its AI products, the USPTO noted that the term was already widely used by others in the industry to denote an entire category of AI models.
This rejection highlights the critical distinction between brand recognition and source identification. While millions of consumers certainly recognized “GPT” in connection with OpenAI, the term still functioned primarily as a description of the technology itself rather than as an exclusive indicator of OpenAI’s products.
For businesses navigating the trademark landscape, the GPT case serves as an important reminder: even substantial market presence doesn’t guarantee trademark protection for terms that primarily describe product features or technology categories. Companies seeking to protect descriptive terminology must ensure it functions primarily as a source identifier rather than as industry shorthand for a product category or technology type.
Interestingly, OpenAI successfully trademarked “ChatGPT”—a more distinctive variation that combines the descriptive “GPT” with an additional term, creating a composite mark with greater distinctiveness. This strategy—pairing descriptive elements with distinctive components—often provides a more viable path to trademark protection than attempting to claim exclusive rights to purely descriptive terminology.
Food and Beverage Descriptive Trademarks
Descriptive and even generic-sounding names are also found in the food and restaurant industry, often requiring creative branding to achieve distinctiveness. Burger King’s name pairs a generic product (“burger”) with a laudatory term (“king”). “Burger King” immediately suggests “king of burgers,” essentially touting the product. Because “burger” is highly descriptive (if not generic) for a burger restaurant, the word burger had to be disclaimed in the trademark (meaning the company cannot claim exclusive rights to “burger” apart from the whole name).
Despite this descriptive nature, Burger King has clearly become a recognizable brand in the marketplace. Decades of operation (founded in the 1950s), nationwide and international franchising, and heavy marketing (“Have it your way”) have given the name secondary meaning. Consumers hear “Burger King” and think of a specific source (the chain) rather than any king selling burgers. Today Burger King operates about 19,500 restaurants worldwide, and the brand was valued around $7.7 billion in 2023 – a testament to its acquired distinctiveness and commercial strength as a descriptive mark.
Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC)
Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) is a classic example of a geographically and generically descriptive name that attained trademark status through secondary meaning. The phrase literally describes a company selling fried chicken from Kentucky. Initially, such a phrase on its face lacks distinctiveness (it indicates what and where, not who). However, Kentucky Fried Chicken (founded in the 1930s) invested enormously in branding – from the Colonel Sanders mascot to nationwide advertising – such that consumers came to associate the entire phrase with one chain.
As one commentator notes, when consumers hear “Kentucky Fried Chicken” they “do not think about just any fried chicken company in Kentucky but instead associate [it] with KFC.” This is a textbook case of acquired distinctiveness for a descriptive mark.
In fact, to reinforce distinctiveness, the company in the 1990s rebranded officially to the acronym KFC, downplaying the purely descriptive words. Today, KFC is a global fast-food leader with 30,000+ restaurants worldwide and a strong trademark. The name’s evolution shows how continuous use and marketing can transform a phrase that simply describes a product (“fried chicken from Kentucky”) into a protected brand identifier in consumers’ minds.
Philadelphia Cream Cheese
Many food product brands combine a descriptive term with a brand element. For instance, Philadelphia Cream Cheese uses a geographic term (“Philadelphia,” known historically for quality dairy) plus the generic product name. Kraft (the owner) built up “Philadelphia” as a brand such that consumers recognize it as the cream cheese from one source.
While “cream cheese” is generic and unregistrable alone, and “Philadelphia” is descriptive of origin, the composite has acquired distinctiveness through over a century of use. This kind of branding strategy – pairing a place or laudatory term with a product – can succeed if the producer can prove consumers identify the combined term with them alone. (The USPTO often requires disclaimers for the generic portion – e.g. disclaiming exclusive rights to “Cream Cheese” – but will register the mark as a whole upon proof of secondary meaning.)
Fashion Industry Descriptive Trademarks
Fashion and apparel companies also sometimes choose names that describe their products or values, later turning them into distinct brands. American Apparel’s brand name is essentially descriptive of the company’s offerings (American-made apparel). “American” indicates the origin or style, and “Apparel” is a generic term for clothing – not inherently distinctive at all. Indeed, any clothing could be called “American apparel,” so at first glance the term lacked uniqueness.
However, American Apparel (founded 1989) deliberately built its identity around the descriptiveness: it marketed itself as a manufacturer of sweatshop-free, made-in-USA clothing, thereby giving the name meaning in consumers’ minds beyond the literal phrase. Through the 2000s, American Apparel’s edgy advertising and “Made in USA” messaging made the brand a household name among young consumers.
The mark acquired distinctiveness as a source indicator — so much so that it was successfully registered and protected as a trademark. The company’s growth supports this: at its peak around 2013, American Apparel had over 250 stores worldwide and annual revenue of about $630 million.
Consumers came to associate the name with a specific trendy retailer rather than any generic category of clothing. American Apparel’s case (along with Best Buy, a laudatory name for an electronics retailer) is frequently cited as an example of a descriptive mark that achieved registration due to market-wide recognition. The key was extensive use, consistent branding, and consumer perception – despite being a combination of a geographic term and a generic product name, the brand signaled a single source to the public.
Urban Outfitters
Another fashion retail name, “Urban Outfitters,” pairs a descriptive term “Outfitters” (meaning clothing retailers) with “Urban” (suggesting city/hip style). Originally, this could describe any city clothing shop. Yet through savvy branding targeting youthful, hip consumers, Urban Outfitters gained distinctiveness. Founded in 1970, it grew into a large retail chain (part of URBN Inc.), with revenues over $5 billion in 2022.
The name now invokes a specific chain known for trendy apparel, not just any urban clothing store. Like American Apparel, this mark likely required a showing of secondary meaning to register. The company’s long use and national presence have made “Urban Outfitters” function as a trademark – an example of combining two somewhat descriptive words into a unique identifier via consistent brand image.
Understanding Descriptive Trademarks
Trademarks that are descriptive typically provide information about a product’s attributes or function, and for legal protection, they often must demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. These marks explicitly detail the qualities, use, or elements of goods/services. Since descriptive marks do not possess inherent distinctiveness by their nature, obtaining legal protection can be complex because it requires them to establish acquired distinctiveness.
Gaining exclusive rights over descriptive trademarks can prove challenging if the necessary secondary meaning isn’t established. Nevertheless, comprehending these complexities is essential for businesses striving to secure exclusive rights and cultivate robust brand identities despite starting with trademarks whose descriptiveness may limit initial exclusivity.
Why Descriptive Marks Are Considered Weak
Trademarks that are descriptive often indicate particular attributes or features of products or services, and when they become recognized by consumers, they may develop a secondary meaning. Because these trademarks innately detail the traits or aspects of a product, obtaining legal protection can be difficult. Descriptive trademarks must overcome substantial legal barriers as they need to demonstrate proof of secondary meaning in order to receive protection.
Typically, for descriptive marks to qualify for complete trademark protection, there must be evidence showing that they have gained distinctiveness through consumer recognition. This requirement emphasizes the relative weakness of such marks compared with other types and underlines the criticality of establishing secondary meaning in pursuit of strong trademark safeguarding.
Difference Between Descriptive and Suggestive Marks
Trademarks that are descriptive tend to explicitly convey the attributes or features of the goods they stand for. Suggestive marks infer a characteristic of an item and necessitate consumer interpretation, obliging a cognitive jump to associate with the product. Suggestive trademarks oblige consumers’ creativity in grasping their relation to the product, which adds value as this type of suggestive mark.
The differentiation stems from how much effort consumers need to exert in order to associate a suggestive mark with its respective merchandise. These marks require greater imagination and typically hold more strength than descriptive marks, which plainly outline what a product offers.
USPTO Approval Rates and Trends: The Statistical Reality of Descriptive Marks
The statistical data on trademark applications reveals the challenging landscape descriptive marks must navigate. For businesses considering descriptive naming strategies, these numbers provide a sobering reality check about the protection hurdles they’ll likely face.
The USPTO’s filtering process is rigorous: approximately 70% of all trademark applications receive an initial refusal, with “likelihood of confusion” and “mere descriptiveness” among the most common grounds. While many applicants can overcome these initial objections through arguments or evidence, the overall success rate for U.S. trademark applications has actually declined in recent years—from approximately 59% to just 51.7%.
This approval rate stands in stark contrast to more permissive jurisdictions like the European Union, where about 90% of applications succeed, or the United Kingdom, with a 78.7% success rate. The disparity stems largely from the USPTO’s proactive examination for descriptiveness and other absolute grounds, whereas some international systems focus primarily on relative grounds like conflicts with existing marks.
For descriptive marks specifically, the statistical hurdles are even higher. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)—which hears appeals on refusals—upholds descriptiveness rejections in approximately 90% of cases, reaching as high as 93% in recent years. In practical terms, this means applicants challenging a descriptiveness refusal face extremely long odds, with only about one in ten appeals succeeding.
These challenging statistics are reflected in the composition of the federal trademark register itself. Approximately 10% of active U.S. trademark registrations reside on the Supplemental Register—the secondary register designed for descriptive marks that haven’t yet proven acquired distinctiveness. Notably, this percentage has grown in recent years, suggesting more businesses are attempting to secure descriptive terms as trademarks.
For businesses navigating trademark strategy, these statistics underscore a fundamental reality: while descriptive marks can eventually achieve protection, the path is significantly more difficult than for inherently distinctive names. Companies must realistically assess whether they have the resources, market presence, and patience to overcome the substantial legal hurdles descriptive naming entails.
Path to Registration for Descriptive Trademarks
In the United States, it is possible to register descriptive trademarks. To secure registration for a descriptive mark, substantial proof that the mark has acquired distinctiveness must be presented by the applicant. The examining attorney from the USPTO assesses aspects such as how long and in what manner the trademark has been used, its role as an identifier of goods or services, and the scale of advertising associated with it to determine if acquired distinctiveness has been established. Due to their inherent nature, which typically lacks uniqueness, according to guidelines from the United States Patent office, registering descriptive trademarks on the Principal Register often presents significant challenges.
It is essential for companies looking to safeguard their descriptive trademarks to understand both what constitutes adequate evidence for proving distinctiveness and have knowledge about all elements involved in the registration process.
Proving Acquired Distinctiveness: The Evidence That Transforms Descriptive Terms
For businesses committed to descriptive naming despite the statistical challenges, understanding exactly what evidence persuades the USPTO becomes crucial. Successful claims of acquired distinctiveness typically combine multiple types of compelling evidence, with certain approaches proving particularly effective.
The “Five-Year Rule” serves as a baseline threshold. Under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act, five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce can constitute prima facie evidence of acquired distinctiveness. In practice, many examining attorneys will accept a claim based on five years’ use and move the application forward to publication for opposition.
However, this five-year declaration alone often proves insufficient for highly descriptive terms. The more descriptive the mark, the more evidence the USPTO typically requires—a sliding scale of scrutiny that reserves the greatest skepticism for the most descriptive terminology. For terms at the highly descriptive end of the spectrum, significant additional evidence becomes essential.
Quantitative financial evidence provides powerful support for distinctiveness claims. Documentation of substantial advertising expenditures demonstrates investment in building consumer recognition, while strong sales figures indicate market penetration. When Best Buy cites $46 billion in annual revenue or American Airlines references its multi-billion dollar brand valuation, these figures substantiate claims that consumers widely recognize these descriptive names as brand identifiers.
Perhaps the most persuasive evidence comes directly from consumers themselves. Consumer surveys measuring brand recognition proved decisive in the Booking.com case, where evidence that 74.8% of consumers identified “Booking.com” as a brand rather than a generic descriptor fundamentally shifted the legal outcome. For smaller companies without resources for extensive surveys, affidavits or declarations from consumers and industry participants can provide similar evidence on a more limited scale.
Enforcement history also strengthens distinctiveness claims. Companies that can demonstrate they’ve actively policed their marks and prevented competitors from using similar terminology establish both their commitment to exclusivity and the market’s recognition of their proprietary rights. Conversely, widespread industry use of similar terminology—as in OpenAI’s “GPT” case—typically undermines distinctiveness claims.
The strategic lesson for businesses is clear: acquiring trademark rights for descriptive terms requires a deliberate, documented journey toward consumer recognition. Companies should systematically collect evidence of advertising investments, sales success, media coverage, and consumer recognition from the earliest stages of brand development—creating a robust evidentiary record that can eventually support trademark registration.
Supplemental Register vs. Principal Register
Trademarks that are descriptive in nature may be listed on the Supplemental Register, which caters to trademarks that have the capacity to distinguish products or services but do not qualify for inclusion on the Principal Register. With adequate evidence of use over time, those descriptive trademarks registered on the Supplemental Register can eventually meet criteria for placement onto the Principal Register. When selecting a trademark for goods or services, it’s crucial to weigh both advantages and constraints associated with various trademark registration paths.
Trademarks enrolled on the Supplemental Register cannot directly transfer their status to the Principal Register. Instead, one must initiate a fresh application process for such an upgrade. Opting to amend an application towards obtaining a spot on the Supplemental Register might lead you to forfeit several privileges typically accorded by registration on the Principal Register.
Legal Challenges and Protections for Descriptive Trademarks
Trademarks that are descriptive may increase their trademark strength through widespread use and recognition by the public. They face a potential loss of legal protections if seen as generic marks or names. While the Supplemental Register provides some protection, with enough usage these trademarks can advance to the Principal Register for greater security.
The OpenAI GPT case illustrates this challenge. If an acronym like GPT is used by many companies, it’s hard to claim exclusivity – which hurt OpenAI’s case. Conversely, American Airlines could show it alone had used that exact phrase for decades in airline services, making it uniquely tied to them.
Understanding the intricacies of how trademark law in the European Union handles and safeguards descriptive trademarks is vital for companies seeking to secure and defend their rights to protectable marks.
Role of Trademark Attorneys
Trademark attorneys are essential in handling the intricacies associated with obtaining trademark protection for descriptive trademarks. Engaging a trademark attorney is key to successfully navigating the elaborate process of trademark registration and can significantly improve the likelihood of securing legal protection. Due to their inherent nature, descriptive trademarks often face limited legal protections, which poses difficulties for owners when combating infringement claims within the patent and trademark office.
Having skilled legal counsel becomes imperative during the process of registering a trademark, especially when it comes to demonstrating secondary meaning. The expertise provided by these professionals enables companies to effectively secure and safeguard their rights regarding descriptive trademarks.
Trademark Enforcement Strategies
It is essential to keep an eye on the marketplace for any possible violations when it comes to upholding the rights of descriptive trademarks. Vigilant enforcement includes spotting any transgressions and swiftly initiating legal measures to safeguard trademark privileges.
When companies actively pursue legal recourse against those who infringe upon their marks, they reinforce their entitlements and defend the uniqueness of their brand. The consistent and sole utilization of a mark, together with assertive enforcement efforts, can enhance the standing of a descriptive trademark in its industry.
Famous Brands with Descriptive Trademarks
Many renowned brands began as descriptive trademarks, demonstrating their capability for expansion and triumph. For example, Coca-Cola evolved from a term that simply described its product to an iconic brand name known worldwide by using ordinary language to express its essence. Similarly, Western Digital and Power Computing have developed strong secondary meanings that have afforded them unique rights to their respective trademarks. While fanciful trademarks can substantially contribute to the formation of a distinct brand identity, there are instances where arbitrary trademarks might ultimately become considered generic over time.
These cases highlight how effective tactics coupled with consumer recognition can transform initially descriptive terms into formidable trademark identities with substantial market power.
Examples from Various Industries
Western Digital has effectively evolved from a trademark with a descriptive nature into an eminent brand within the technology sector. Power Computing, despite originating with a name that straightforwardly described its Macintosh clone products, managed to carve out a unique brand identity.
The journey of these brands from distinct sectors underscores the ability of trademarks with descriptive qualities to flourish and attain prominence. They stand as exemplars for other companies striving to forge a robust identity for their own brands.
Secure Your Brand with the RLG Trademark Guarantee
Ready to lock in your brand identity with a strong trademark? The RLG Guarantee ensures a seamless trademark registration journey. Start with a free strategy call with our trademark concierge team, where you’ll receive personalized guidance tailored to your business needs. With one of our experienced US attorneys leading your application from start to finish, you’ll benefit from our transparent flat-fee service that covers the entire process, including unlimited office action responses.
Rest easy knowing that if the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denies your application, we offer a full refund.*
Plus, if your brand encounters registerability issues, choose between a full refund or additional searches to find the perfect name.* Trust in our expertise and commitment to securing your brand’s future. Schedule your free strategy call to get started.
*All refunds are subject to the terms and conditions of the RLG Guarantee Policy outlined in the engagement letter for the selected matter. The RLG Guarantee excludes descriptive marks.
Summary: The Strategic Value of Descriptive Trademarks
Descriptive trademarks present a complex risk-reward proposition in modern branding. Initially vulnerable due to their straightforward communicative nature, these marks can ultimately become powerful brand assets when backed by substantial market presence and consumer recognition.
The journey from descriptiveness to distinctiveness is neither quick nor easy. The statistical reality is sobering: most descriptive marks face initial USPTO rejection, and approximately 90% of appeals against descriptiveness refusals fail. Even successful descriptive marks like American Airlines, IBM, Windows, and Booking.com required decades of market prominence and significant legal investment to achieve full protection.
Yet the strategic advantages of descriptive naming can justify these challenges for certain businesses. Descriptive names communicate product benefits instantly, reduce customer education costs, and often perform exceptionally well in search engines. When a company succeeds in transforming a descriptive term into a protected trademark—as Best Buy did with a name that literally describes its value proposition—it secures a uniquely valuable asset that simultaneously communicates benefits and identifies source.
For businesses navigating trademark strategy today, several principles emerge from successful descriptive trademark cases:
- Distinctiveness takes time: Companies pursuing descriptive naming should anticipate a long-term journey toward acquired distinctiveness, typically measured in years or decades rather than months.
- Evidence matters: Successful descriptive trademark claims combine multiple forms of evidence—usage history, advertising expenditures, sales figures, and consumer recognition—to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness.
- Composite marks increase viability: Combining descriptive elements with distinctive components (as in “ChatGPT” versus “GPT”) often provides a more viable path to trademark protection.
- Enforcement reinforces rights: Active policing and enforcement against unauthorized uses helps establish and maintain the distinctiveness of descriptive marks.
- Consumer perception is determinative: Ultimately, the key question is whether consumers recognize the descriptive term as identifying a specific source rather than describing a category—making consumer survey evidence particularly valuable.
As we’ve seen through cases spanning technology, food, fashion, and hospitality, the path from descriptiveness to distinctiveness is challenging but achievable. With strategic foresight, persistent branding efforts, and appropriate legal guidance, companies can transform initially descriptive terms into powerful, protected brand assets that deliver both immediate consumer comprehension and long-term competitive advantage.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are descriptive trademarks?
Descriptive trademarks are terms that directly describe the features or characteristics of a product or service, and they typically need to show acquired distinctiveness to gain legal protection.
Why are descriptive marks considered weak?
Marks that are descriptive struggle to gain inherent distinctiveness, which hampers their ability to obtain legal protection unless they can show over time that consumers recognize them.
As a result, these types of marks typically encounter more difficulties in enforcement than marks with greater distinctiveness.
How can a descriptive trademark become strong?
A descriptive trademark can become strong by establishing secondary meaning through extensive use and consumer recognition, supported by strategic branding efforts.
This process helps the trademark gain distinctiveness in the minds of consumers.
What is the difference between descriptive and suggestive trademarks?
Descriptive trademarks clearly convey the attributes of a product, whereas suggestive trademarks hint at a quality and require consumers to think creatively to make the connection.
This distinction is crucial for trademark protection and branding strategy.
What role do trademark attorneys play in protecting descriptive trademarks?
Trademark lawyers are essential in securing protection for descriptive trademarks, assisting with the registration process, confirming secondary meaning, and defending against infringement.
Their specialized knowledge greatly enhances the prospects of obtaining successful trademark protection.
What is the success rate for registering descriptive trademarks?
The overall success rate for U.S. trademark applications hovers around 51-59% in recent years. For descriptiveness specifically, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upholds descriptiveness refusals roughly 90% of the time, meaning only about 1 in 10 appeals succeeds in overturning a finding that a mark is merely descriptive.
What evidence is most effective for proving acquired distinctiveness?
The most effective evidence includes consumer surveys showing brand recognition (as in the Booking.com case where 74.8% of consumers identified it as a brand), substantial advertising expenditures, significant sales figures, and documented extensive use over time. The USPTO also considers five years of exclusive use as prima facie evidence, though for highly descriptive marks, additional proof is often required.
