Back to Office actions

What is Section 2(d) Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion?

Senior Trademark Attorney

A Section 2(d) refusal is issued by the USPTO when the examiner determines that the applied-for mark is confusingly similar to an earlier registered or pending trademark and the goods or services overlap sufficiently that consumers are likely to be confused about the source of the goods or services.

This is the most common ground for a substantive office action in the US. The examiner cites the specific earlier mark and identifies the grounds of similarity. The applicant then has the opportunity to argue against the finding; challenging the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the goods or services, or other relevant factors.

Start with a free assessment of your office action with Trama.

Related questions

mateus-campos-felipe-ZKJQCWsKmPs-unsplash

7 unusual and surprising trademarks people have registered

Trademark laws protect not only words and slogans, but also various shapes, sounds, and smells. With millions of trademark applications filed each year, we are seeing an influx of exceptional cases of filings for unconventional trademarks by both new and established brands. Below is a list of some of the most original and unexpected products that people have trademarked.

How to maximise chances of a trademark registration success?

Skill, experience and attention to detail play an essential role in mitigating the potential risks that could impede a successful trademark registration. Given the non-refundable trademark application fees, relying on a trusted expert can provide applicants with an economic benefit in addition to the peace of mind.

Trademarks filed in bad faith: the case of Tesco vs Lidl

Bad Faith trademark filings worldwide have increased significantly over the past years. And while the problem persists, the trademark lawyers still struggle to define consistent minimum acceptable standards for dealing with bad faith trademark applications. Resolution of the ongoing dispute between Lidl and Tesco could have significant implications for future rulings concerning bad faith trademark registrations.