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.

Originally posted 2011-02-13 19:15:18. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

By Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

6 thoughts on “The ultimate trademark?”
  1. Now this could be interesting. The only logical Opposer would be the USPTO. Let’s see if it gets beyond the Examining Attorney. I’d love to see the EA’s arguments.

  2. Or cooler if his last name started with “M”, so the TM would have doubled as his monogram. (At first glance, I read his last name as “Lanham”, which also would have been kind of appropos..)

    But if his services include “Logos/Branding”, isn’t he claiming trademark for Trademark for trademarks?

Comments are closed.