When you file a trademark, an examining attorney at the USPTO reviews it against the Lanham Act and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP). Most tools warn you about one or two refusal grounds. Here is the full landscape — so nothing blindsides you.
The big one: likelihood of confusion — §2(d)
Your mark is refused if it's likely to be confused with a mark someone already registered or used for related goods. This is judged on the DuPont factors — chiefly how similar the marks look, sound, and mean, and how related the goods are. It's the most common refusal, and the reason a knockout search matters. Full breakdown here.
The descriptiveness family — §2(e)
- Merely descriptive — describes a feature of the goods.
- Deceptively misdescriptive — describes a feature the product plausibly, but falsely, has.
- Primarily geographically descriptive — primarily names the place the goods come from.
- Geographically deceptively misdescriptive — names a place the goods are not from, and it matters to buyers. An absolute bar.
- Primarily merely a surname — reads mainly as somebody's last name.
- Functional — a product feature that's essential to how it works. Trademark can't monopolize utility.
Deception & false association — §2(a), (b), (c)
Deceptive matter, a false suggestion of a connection with a real person or institution, government flags and insignia, and the name or likeness of a living individual without consent are all barred.
Failure to function as a mark
Even a unique word fails if consumers don't see it as a brand: generic terms, widely-used informational messages ("Drive Safely"), purely ornamental designs across a shirt, business-name-only use, and the title of a single book or song.
Formalities that still sink applications
A specimen that doesn't show real use in commerce (or is a mockup), an indefinite list of goods, filing under the wrong owner, unlawful goods (e.g. federally illegal cannabis), and refusing to disclaim a descriptive word can each derail a filing.
Two grounds that no longer exist
Courts struck down the bans on "disparaging" marks (Matal v. Tam, 2017) and "immoral or scandalous" marks (Iancu v. Brunetti, 2019) as unconstitutional. A good screen knows not to warn you about dead rules.