Choosing A Strong Trademark

Choosing a Strong Trademark: The Distinctiveness Spectrum choosing-a-strong-trademark article practical_guides casey@mclaw.io 02-04-2026 23-06-2026 Trademark Basics trademark distinctiveness, fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, generic, secondary meaning, acquired distinctiveness, abercrombie, section 2(f) Not all trademarks are created equal. Where your mark falls on the distinctiveness spectrum decides how easy it is to register, how hard it is to enforce, and how much it will cost to protect.

Trademark law sorts every mark onto a spectrum of distinctiveness, and where yours lands determines almost everything about its legal life. The framework comes from one famous opinion — Judge Friendly's decision in Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) — and the USPTO applies it to every application that crosses an examiner's desk.

The five categories

1. Fanciful — invented words with no prior meaning (KODAK, XEROX). The strongest marks of all: inherently distinctive and easy to police.
2. Arbitrary — real words with no connection to the goods (APPLE for computers). Nearly as strong.
3. Suggestive — hints at a quality without describing it (NETFLIX, COPPERTONE). Inherently distinctive, so registrable without proof of secondary meaning. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992).
4. Descriptive — directly describes a feature, quality, or ingredient (COLD AND CREAMY for ice cream). Barred from the Principal Register by Lanham Act § 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1) — registrable only with acquired distinctiveness under § 2(f), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(f). The classic illustration is Zatarain's, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc., 698 F.2d 786 (5th Cir. 1983) ("FISH-FRI").
5. Generic — the name of the thing itself (BICYCLE for bicycles). Never registrable, and never protectable — no amount of money or marketing can rescue a generic term.