[E-trademarks] Mark that was not distinctive when registration was granted but maybe is now

[Jessica R. Friedman]

(Hypothetical) My client wants to register BROWN PREMIER for financial advisory services. There is a Principal registration on the books for PREMIER FINANCIAL. “Premier” clearly is laudatory; it’s even one of the examples that the TMEP gives of laudatory marks. At the time of application, the applicant had been using it for only three years, so there no presumption created by five years of use. So, it seems that this was a completely descriptive mark. But the PTO didn’t object under Section 2(e) or ask for evidence of secondary meaning. It simply suggested that the applicant disclaim the word FINANCIAL, which it did.

If this registration for PREMIER FINANCIAL is cited against an application to register BROWN PREMIER, I’d like to argue that the existing registration shouldn’t have been granted because the mark was merely descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness. But now PREMIER FINANCIAL has been in use for 20 years. Let’s assume that now it is distinctive. Does that fact preclude me from arguing successfully that the registration was invalid from the getgo?


Jessica R. Friedman

Attorney at Law

300 East 59 Street, Ste. 2406

New York, NY 10022

Phone: 212-220-0900

Cell: 917-647-1884

E-mail: jrfriedman at litproplaw.com<mailto:jrfriedman at litproplaw.com>

URL: www.literarypropertylaw.com<http://www.literarypropertylaw.com>



[1479430908386_PastedImage]


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250729/c9b2e9bc/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001[8].png
Type: image/png
Size: 8891 bytes
Desc: image001[8].png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250729/c9b2e9bc/attachment.png>