Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Can Trademarks Be Primarily Geographically Descriptive?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on December 12, 2018
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Suppose that you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services for your business.  What if the trademark describes a geographical area such as eastern?  Should you register your trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?  Can you obtain a registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?  The answer is YES! if the mark is not primarily geographically descriptive.

Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(2), prohibits registration on the Principal Register of a mark that is primarily geographically descriptive of the goods or services named in the application. See T.M.E.P. §1210.01(a). The test for determining whether a term is primarily geographically descriptive is whether:

  1. the mark sought to be registered (or a portion thereof) is the name of a place generally known to the public;
  2. the public would make an association between the goods or services and the place named in the mark, that is, believe that the goods or services for which the mark is sought to be registered originate in the place; and
  3. the source of the goods or services is the geographic region named in the mark.

In re Newbridge Cutlery Co., 776 F.3d 854, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1445, 1448-1449 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerals de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 3 U.S.P.Q.2d 1450 (Fed. Cir. 1987).  The relevant public is the purchasing public in the United States of the types of goods or services identified in the application. Newbridge, 113 USPQ2d at 1449.

For such an analysis, the Examining Attorney must evaluate each mark on a case-by-case basis. The Examining Attorney must take into consideration the entire context, the type of goods or services at issue, the geographic origin of the goods or services and, most importantly, the overall commercial impression of the mark at issue.

If there is a nuance, even a subtle one, this may remove a mark from the primarily geographically descriptive category. This is a difficult analysis and the Examining Attorney has to determine whether the overall commercial impression is something other than primarily geographic – for example, due to double meanings or shades of suggestive meanings.

In the recent case of In re Buffalo Bayou Distilleries, LLC, (T.T.A.B., not precedent) (July 30, 2018), Buffalo Bayou Distilleries, LLC. (“Buffalo”) sought registration for the mark EAST END for alcoholic beverages, except beers, ales, stouts, ciders and wines, and alcoholic beverages, namely, distilled spirits, vodka in International Class 33.  The Examining Attorney denied registration for the mark as primarily geographically descriptive under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(2).  Buffalo responded that the mark has no geographical significance.  However, the Examining Attorney introduced evidence that Buffalo is located in Houston’s Historic East End, just two miles from Downtown Huston.  After being denied registration, Buffalo appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”).  The TTAB reviewed the record as a whole and remain unconvinced that “East End” primarily identifies a geographic location in Houston that is “known generally to the American purchasing public.”  See Newbridge Cutlery, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1450.  The TTAB found that the record reflects that “East End” can refer to numerous geographical locations, suggesting that its primary significance is not referring to the area in Houston, Texas.  Thus, the TTAB held that the mark was registrable and reversed the Examining Attorney, thereby allowing registration of the mark.

Trademarks can be denied registration based on the mark being primarily geographically descriptive.  As such, you should file an application to register the trademark when the overall commercial impression is something other than primarily geographic – for example, due to double meanings or shades of suggestive meanings.  You should be able to have the trademark application examined and obtain a registration.  However, it is still possible that once the application is published for opposition, a third party may attempt to oppose the mark.  However, any opposition should be dismissed if the opposition is based on the overall commercial impression being something other than primarily geographic.  If the opposition, is based on other grounds, then you will be forced to proceed through an opposition if settlement is not possible.  Ultimately, you should be able to obtain your registration.


Connect with Dan on LinkedIn.

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo