Lawyer Listings Add, Update, or Remove Listings

Trademark Registration and Likelihood of Confusion

How a brand name, logo or slogan becomes a federally registered trademark - the distinctiveness spectrum, the use-based and intent-to-use applications, the examination and opposition process - and the likelihood-of-confusion test that decides both whether a mark can register and whether someone else's use infringes it.

Informational only - this is not legal advice. These definitions explain general legal vocabulary in plain English. They are not advice about your situation, reading them creates no attorney-client relationship, and the law differs from state to state and changes over time. For advice you can rely on, speak to a lawyer licensed in your state.

What it means

Trademark rights in the United States arise from use, not registration: a business that sells goods or services under a name acquires common-law rights in the area where it operates. Federal registration on the Principal Register adds nationwide constructive notice and priority from the filing date, a legal presumption of ownership and validity, the right to use the ® symbol, access to federal court and customs recordation, and after a period of continuous use the possibility of "incontestable" status that removes most challenges. An applicant may file on the basis of current use or on a bona fide intent to use, in which case registration issues only after use is shown.

Whether a mark can register depends first on distinctiveness. Fanciful and arbitrary marks - invented words, or ordinary words with no connection to the goods - and suggestive marks register at once; a merely descriptive term, a surname or a geographic name registers only after acquiring "secondary meaning" through use and advertising, and a generic term - the name of the thing itself - can never be a trademark and can be lost by a mark that becomes one. The examining attorney also refuses marks that are deceptive, that falsely suggest a connection with a person or institution, that are functional, or that are likely to be confused with a mark already registered or applied for. A refused applicant may argue, amend or appeal; an approved mark is published for opposition, and any person who believes they would be harmed may oppose it within the published window.

Likelihood of confusion is the test for infringement as well as for registration: whether an ordinary buyer is likely to be confused about the source, sponsorship or affiliation of the goods or services. Courts weigh the similarity of the marks in sight, sound and meaning, the relatedness of the goods, the channels of trade, the strength of the senior mark, the care buyers exercise, evidence of actual confusion, and the junior user's intent; no factor is decisive. Famous marks are additionally protected against dilution - uses that blur their distinctiveness or tarnish them - without proof of confusion. Remedies include an injunction, the infringer's profits, damages and, in exceptional cases, attorney's fees; counterfeiting carries statutory damages and criminal penalties.

Where this comes from

The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1141n: applications at § 1051, grounds for refusal at § 1052, publication and opposition at §§ 1062-1063, incontestability at § 1065, infringement of registered marks at § 1114 and of unregistered marks at § 1125(a), dilution at § 1125(c), and remedies at §§ 1116-1117 (Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, 590 U.S. 212 (2020), on profits without wilfulness). The distinctiveness spectrum is from Abercrombie & Fitch v. Hunting World, 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976), adopted in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, 505 U.S. 763 (1992); the confusion factors are the circuit tests descended from Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics, 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1961), and In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973); Booking.com, 591 U.S. 549 (2020), and Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), are recent applications. The USPTO rules are at 37 C.F.R. part 2 and its manual is the TMEP. The opposition window and the use period for incontestability are fixed by statute and rule and are not stated here.

When people hire a lawyer for this

A clearance search before adopting a name - not after printing the signage - is the single thing a trademark lawyer does that saves the most money, because the cost of rebranding after a cease-and-desist letter dwarfs the cost of choosing differently. The application itself is where descriptions of goods, specimens of use and the choice of filing basis are routinely got wrong by self-filers and cost the priority date. A business that receives a demand letter over its name should neither ignore it nor capitulate on the spot: the sender's mark may be weak, the goods unrelated, or the sender's use junior to its own.

Find a lawyer for this in your state

Choose your state. Each link opens the directory page for the city in that state with the most currently published law firms in this practice area; a +n beside the city is how many other cities in the state also have one. The list is generated when this page loads, so a state whose listings have lapsed drops out rather than becoming a dead link.

« All glossary terms

Part of the LawyerLand plain-English legal glossary. Definitions are written from primary sources - statutes and court rules - and each entry states the authority it rests on, or says plainly when the doctrine is state law with no national rule.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, civil legal aid programmes provide free help with many of these problems: civil legal aid programmes by state.

Related free reference tools: statute of limitations for a personal-injury claim, by state, quoted from each state's official text - part of LawyerLand's legal reference tools.