Here’s an updated, lengthy list of Section 2(e)(2) geographical descriptiveness cases. These are much more common than Section 2(e)(3) refusals, perhaps because the former is more easily established since it is not necessary to prove the materiality of the misrepresentation. The great majority of the decisions are not precedential, but even non-precedential decisions may be helpful in framing effective arguments and locating precedential support for them.

For a mark to be deemed primarily geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2), it must be shown that (1) the mark’s primary significance is a generally known geographic location; (2) the relevant public would be likely to make a goods/place association, that is, would be likely to believe that the goods originate in the place named in the mark; and (3) the goods do originate in that place. When the goods do come from the location named, then a goods/place association may be presumed.

Marks found to be primarily geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2):

Marks found not to be primarily geographically descriptive under Section 2(e)(2):

Read comments and post your comment here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2019.