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

[Jessica R. Friedman]

If I do, then I lose, because clearly it is really the fault of the PTO examiner who said, just disclaim FINANCIAL.

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]



From: E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf of asarabia2 via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2025 at 2:09 PM
To: e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
Cc: asarabia2 <asarabia2 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [E-trademarks] Mark that was not distinctive when registration was granted but maybe is now


Don't you have to prove fraud?

Regards,

Tony

IP Business Law, Inc.
320 via Pasqual
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
(310)377-5171
www.calrestitution.com<http://www.calrestitution.com>

On 7/29/2025 10:29 AM, Jessica R. Friedman via E-trademarks wrote:
(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/a6e66a08/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/a6e66a08/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001[62].png
Type: image/png
Size: 8891 bytes
Desc: image001[62].png
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20250729/a6e66a08/attachment-0001.png>