
Hugo Boss trademark challenge turned into PR nightmare
What happens when an internationally well-known luxury fashion house goes against a small family-owned Welsh brewery? As it turns out, a lot of unexpected things.
A Section 2(e)(3) refusal is among the most difficult to overcome. The two main grounds to argue are that the geographic term is not of primary significance in the mark, or that the connection between the term and the goods is not material to consumers.
On primary significance: if the geographic term has a well-established meaning in a non-geographic context in the relevant trade (for example, a place name that is also a common surname or has an independent commercial meaning), argue that consumers would not primarily read it as a geographic indicator.
On materiality: the refusal requires not only that the geographic origin is falsely implied but that the origin would be material to the purchasing decision. If consumers of the relevant goods are not meaningfully influenced by the claimed geographic origin, the materiality element may be arguable.
Unlike Section 2(e)(2), acquired distinctiveness cannot overcome a Section 2(e)(3) refusal. If the mark is genuinely geographically deceptively misdescriptive, the practical resolution is to remove or modify the geographic element.
Does receiving an office action mean my trademark is denied?
Can I amend my trademark application in response to an office action?
How long does it take for the USPTO to review my response to an office action?
What is a suspension letter in context of trademark office actions?
Is there any other solution to an office action besides responding?
What does it mean if a trademark is 'published for oppositions'?
Our team of experienced trademark attorneys is here to help you! Simply send us an email outlining your request and we'll be happy to assist you.