Getting a trademark refusal from the USPTO can feel like a dead end, especially when the office action mentions likelihood of confusion or mere descriptiveness. In reality, many applicants reach this point. The issue is often less about panic and more about strategy, evidence, and wording.
If you’re trying to make sense of what the examining attorney is actually saying, it may help to start with a broader overview of how trademark office actions work and what different refusals usually mean. In this post you’ll learn how these two refusals work, what the USPTO is looking for, what response paths are commonly available, and when a trademark attorney’s documented experience can make a meaningful difference.
<aside> 💡 Scroll to the bottom for every post in this series.
</aside>
Among substantive USPTO refusals, these are two of the most common and most consequential.
A likelihood-of-confusion refusal usually arises under Section 2(d) when the USPTO believes the applied-for mark is too close to an existing registered mark for related goods or services. The USPTO explains that examining attorneys compare the marks and the relatedness of the goods or services to decide whether consumers are likely to think they come from the same source. The agency also notes that it conducts this search after the application is filed, even if the applicant ran a clearance search beforehand (USPTO likelihood of confusion guidance).
A descriptiveness refusal generally arises under Section 2(e)(1) when the USPTO believes the mark immediately describes an ingredient, quality, function, feature, purpose, or use of the goods or services rather than identifying source. The USPTO’s guidance uses straightforward examples like “CREAMY” for yogurt to illustrate the concept (USPTO possible grounds for refusal).
These refusals can shape the entire future of the application. In many cases, the difference between a clean response and a damaging one comes down to how the applicant frames the goods/services, the commercial impression of the mark, and the evidentiary record.
A likelihood-of-confusion refusal does not require proof that buyers have already been confused in the real world. The governing framework comes from In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., which established a multi-factor analysis for confusion issues, and later cases have emphasized that only the relevant factors for the specific record are weighed (Federal Circuit case page for du Pont principles referenced by USPTO materials; USPTO guidance).
In practice, the USPTO often focuses heavily on two issues:
That emphasis appears repeatedly in USPTO materials and office action examples applying TMEP §1207 (USPTO guidance; USPTO case document citing TMEP §1207).
The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re Detroit Athletic Co. is a useful reminder that actual confusion evidence is not dispositive, especially in an ex parte trademark examination. In other words, saying “nobody has been confused yet” may not carry much weight by itself.
A descriptiveness refusal usually turns on whether the mark immediately conveys information about the goods or services. The USPTO’s current guidance states that a mark may be refused if it directly describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use (USPTO possible grounds for refusal).
The Federal Circuit has also framed the issue in practical terms. In In re Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the court discussed descriptiveness by asking whether the mark immediately conveys knowledge of a quality or characteristic of the services. That “immediacy” concept is central.
This is where many applicants get tripped up. A term can feel creative from a branding perspective and still look descriptive from the USPTO’s perspective if consumers would instantly understand what it says about the product or service.