Can Companies Trademark Common Words? Understanding Why Trademark Battles Over Everyday Language Occur April 28, 2026

Why can some words like “Apple” be protected but others like “gruyere” cannot? Trademarks are used to protect words, phrases, designs, and any combinations. Many businesses are increasingly building their brands around simple words that are easy for consumers to remember. It seems that there are common words and phrases that are protected all the time. This is because trademark law in the U.S. attempts to balance protecting brand identities with preserving the use of everyday words. Yet, when companies attempt to enforce these trademark rights over these common words, conflicts can arise with competitors who argue that common use of words can lead to consumer confusion.  

Trademarks, at their core, are used to identify, indicate the source of, and distinguish the goods or services from others. The central goal of trademarks is to prevent consumer confusion and protect the goodwill of brands developed by businesses. Trademarks do not give a company ownership of a name in all contexts; they only act as a source or brand identifier for their specific goods or services in which the trademarks are used. When consumers see a particular mark on a product or service, they can recognize the source (i.e., the company). In this way, trademarks assist consumers in making informed decisions based on a brand’s reputation for product and service quality.  

Trademark rights are for goods and services used in commerce. When businesses begin using marks in connection with their goods or services, they can gain legal rights in the mark within a certain geographic area where they operate. Businesses can strengthen these legal rights by protecting the mark in states where they operate, or by registering nationally with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Federal registration provides a national notice of ownership, legal presumptions of validity, and the ability to bring infringement claims in federal court. When evaluating a potentially infringing trademark, a key consideration is that there is no likelihood of consumer confusion as to the source of the good or service. Courts evaluate multiple factors when determining whether confusion is likely, including the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the goods or services, the strength of the existing mark, and evidence of actual confusion among consumers. 

Not every word or symbol can qualify as a trademark. Courts analyze marks using a distinctiveness spectrum, which evaluates how closely the mark relates to the product it represents. Trademarks can be fanciful, arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, or generic. Strong trademarks are inherently distinctive, meaning that the mark can quickly and clearly identify the source or good. The strongest trademarks are those that fall into the “fanciful” category, such as made-up words that only have meaning in relation to their goods, like Kodak, which incidentally was invented specifically for the purpose of trademarking.  

Similarly, “arbitrary” trademarks are marks that are actual words but that have no association with the underlying goods or services, like Apple or Delta Airlines. Yet, as said above, Apple and Delta trademarks do not give full protection in all areas of goods, only those in electronics and airlines. This is why Delta Airlines is able to coexist with Delta Faucets as they operate in different goods and services.  

Further along the spectrum are “suggestive” marks, which hint at qualities of a product but require some imagination to connect the mark to the product, such as Netflix or KitchenAid. Suggestive marks are generally protectable without needing proof of secondary meaning.  

Next are “descriptive” marks, which clearly describe qualities or characteristics of a product, such as its function, appearance, or geographic location, such as Bank of America or Holiday Inn. Descriptive marks can receive protection only if they develop secondary meaning, meaning consumers have come to associate the mark primarily with a particular business. Courts determine secondary meaning by considering factors such as advertising efforts, consumer surveys, and the length of time the mark has been used.  

Finally, at the other end of the spectrum are “generic” terms, which are the common names for products and cannot receive trademark protection. For example, a company cannot trademark the word “computer” for computers.  

Recent trademark disputes illustrate how conflicts often arise when companies attempt to claim rights in common words. One recent example involves CrowdStrike, which sued a competing firm over their use of the name “AiStrike” arguing that the use of the similar word “strike” could lead to consumer confusion in AI-driven cybersecurity products. Similarly, Adobe has recently been sued by Foundry Visionmongers for their use of the word “foundry” in their new AI tool for use in visual effects. Another dispute from the past few years, which was brought up to the Supreme Court, concerned whether the word “gruyere” could be protected as a certification mark in the United States. European producers argued that the name refers specifically to cheese produced in the Gruyère region, but U.S. courts ultimately determined that “gruyere” had become a generic term for a type of cheese in the American market.  Other common words that have spurred trademark conflicts such as “world” and “lucky.” For instance, World Oil Corp. sued World Kinect Corporation after they had rebranded and adopted a similar name, raising concerns about consumer confusion.  

Finally, Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. has repeatedly sued Lucky Brand as the competing clothing companies argued over the use of the word “Lucky” in their branding. Together, these cases highlight the central tension in trademark law: while businesses seek to build recognizable brands using simple and memorable words, courts must ensure that common language remains available for competitors and the public to use. 

Trademark disputes over common words can arise because the legal system must balance protecting brand identity with preserving access to everyday language. While companies can sometimes obtain trademark rights in ordinary words, those rights are typically limited to situations where the word functions as a distinctive source identifier and where consumer confusion is unlikely. As a result, businesses that rely on common words can face a greater risk of litigation and weaker protection than those using more distinctive marks. To better safeguard brands, companies should consider adopting unique, non-descriptive, or even invented terms, which are easier to protect and less likely to overlap with competitors. By choosing distinctive branding from the outset and registering it with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, businesses can reduce the likelihood of disputes and the likelihood of consumer confusion, all while strengthening their long-term trademark rights. 

Ashley Holland is an Intellectual Property Attorney in the Biotechnology & Chemical Practice Group at McKee, Voorhees & Sease, PLC. For additional information please visit www.ipmvs.com or contact Ashley directly via email at ashley.holland@ipmvs.com.