The ultimate trademark?

Okay, so I thought I had accomplished something by snagging a registration for the concept at the heart of trademark protection — why, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® of course!

This, however, takes the cake:

Now, of course, we all know that the “TM” symbol does not indicate the existence of a trademark registration under U.S. law.  Rather it is a unilateral assertion of trademark rights.

Well, so?  Can a design studio earn trademark rights — and perhaps eventually a registration — for the name TRADEMARK?

Why not?  It would have been neater if the graphic artist’s name had been, you know, Mark.  But Tim’s a nice name too, and TRADETIM might not have had such a great ring to it.  Anyway, I see no reason this couldn’t function as a trademark.  Is there something in all the small print that says it can’t?  If you’re one of those small-print readers, let me know.  Doctrinally speaking, however, it looks pretty solid to me:  On the generic-descriptive-suggestive-arbitrary-fanciful continuum, I vote no more than suggestive and perhaps even arbitrary.

Hat tip to a very cool blog about graphic design called Grain Edit.

UPDATE:  Did I say “takes the cake”?  Well, yes.  Unlike the cupcake situation, this one is in fact easier than PIE.

6 comments