18 min read
Many brand owners are genuinely surprised when a trademark application is rejected—especially when the name is original and no competitor appears to be using it. The confusion usually starts with a simple question: If no one has copied the name, why was it refused?
In India, a large number of trademark rejections have nothing to do with similarity or infringement. Instead, they happen because the proposed brand name is seen as descriptive rather than distinctive under trademark law. This is a distinction that often makes perfect sense to examiners, but feels counter-intuitive to founders and marketing teams.
From a branding perspective, describing what a product does or who it is meant for can feel like a smart choice. From a legal perspective, however, trademark protection is not meant to reward descriptions—it is meant to protect identifiers. The law is less concerned with how attractive a name sounds, and more focused on whether the name helps consumers identify who is behind the product or service.
This gap between marketing logic and trademark law is where many applications run into trouble. Understanding the difference between distinctive and descriptive trademarks early can help avoid objections, delays, and unnecessary legal costs later.
This guide breaks down that distinction in clear, practical terms—using real-world examples and Indian legal principles—so brand owners can make informed decisions before filing a trademark application.
Distinctiveness in Trademarks: What It Really Means
When trademark lawyers talk about distinctiveness, they are really asking one simple question:
Does this name help people recognise who is behind the product or service?
A trademark is considered distinctive when consumers can connect the name to a particular business, rather than to the product itself. In other words, the name works as a source identifier—it tells customers where the product comes from, not what the product is.
This is why trademark law protects brand names, not descriptions.
Think about well-known brands. Names like Apple, Nike, or Zomato do not explain the products or services at all. Yet, the moment you hear them, you know exactly which company they refer to. That immediate association is what trademark law values.
Why Distinctiveness Matters in Practice
The purpose of trademark law is to prevent confusion in the marketplace. If every business were allowed to register common or descriptive words, competitors would quickly run out of language to describe their own products.
From an examiner’s point of view, the concern is practical:
- Will other traders need to use this word to describe their goods?
- Does the name give one business an unfair monopoly over everyday language?
- Does the mark actually point to a single source?
If the answer to these questions is unclear, objections usually follow.
Indian trademark law has always reflected this principle. Even before the current Trade Marks Act, 1999, marks that lacked distinctiveness were difficult to register. The law continues to favour names that clearly distinguish one business from another, rather than names that merely describe products or services.
How Indian Courts Look at Distinctiveness
Indian courts have consistently reinforced this idea. We analyse this in detail through key Indian court decisions on descriptive trademarks. In Imperial Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, the court explained that a trademark must possess a quality that allows consumers to identify the goods as originating from one particular business and not from others dealing in similar goods.
The courts have also been clear about what does not qualify. Words that merely praise products—such as “Best,” “Superior,” or “Premium”—are commonly used by many businesses and usually fail to point to any single source. As a result, such terms rarely function well as trademarks.
A similar approach was taken in Cluett Peabody & Co. Inc. v. Arrow Apparels, where the court emphasised that a trademark must help consumers identify the maker of the product, not simply describe or promote the product itself.
What Usually Fails the Distinctiveness Test
In practice, a trademark is likely to face problems if the name:
- is the common name of the product or service,
- describes a feature, quality, or benefit,
- tells customers who the product is meant for, or
- uses words that competitors need in ordinary trade.
For example, a name like “Diet Ice Cream” immediately tells consumers what the product is. While it may sound informative from a marketing perspective, it does not help identify which business is selling the ice cream. As a result, such names are usually treated as descriptive rather than distinctive.
A Practical Takeaway for Brand Owners
A strong trademark does not try to explain the product. It creates an identity.
Brand names that focus on identification rather than description:
- face fewer objections,
- enjoy stronger legal protection, and
- are easier to enforce against copycats later.
This is why thinking about distinctiveness at the naming stage—before filing an application—can save significant time, cost, and frustration down the line.
The Spectrum of Trademark Distinctiveness
Not all trademarks are treated the same under trademark law. Some names are naturally strong and easy to protect, while others are weak and struggle to survive examination. To make sense of this, trademark law looks at brand names along what is often called the spectrum of distinctiveness.
Think of this spectrum as a sliding scale.
At one end are names that can never function as trademarks. At the other end are names that receive the strongest legal protection. The further a brand name moves away from describing the product, the safer it becomes.
Let’s walk through this spectrum from weakest to strongest, in practical terms.
1. Generic Names: Not Trademarks at All
Some words are simply the names of the products or services themselves. These are called generic terms.
If a word answers the question “What is this product?”, it cannot function as a trademark.
For example:
- “Milk” for dairy products
- “Shoes” for footwear
- “Computer” for electronic devices
No matter how long such words are used, trademark law does not allow any one business to claim ownership over them. Everyone in the market needs these words to trade.
From a brand owner’s perspective:
Generic names may feel simple and clear, but legally, they are a dead end.
2. Descriptive Names: Familiar, but Risky
Descriptive trademarks sit just above generic terms—and this is where many applications run into trouble.
A name is considered descriptive when it directly explains:
- what the product is,
- what it does,
- a key feature or quality, or
- who it is meant for.
Examples include:
- “Fast Delivery” for courier services
- “Organic Tea” for tea products
- “Best Coaching” for educational services
These names make immediate sense to customers, which is why they are popular with marketing teams. Unfortunately, that same clarity is what creates problems under trademark law. If a name describes the product too clearly, it does not leave room to identify a single source.
Descriptive marks can sometimes be registered, but only after proving strong consumer recognition over time—a difficult and evidence-heavy process.
This is the most common danger zone for brand owners.
3. Suggestive Names: A Safer Middle Ground
Suggestive trademarks strike a balance between creativity and clarity. Instead of describing the product directly, they hint at a quality or benefit and require a bit of imagination from the consumer.
For example:
- “QuickHeal” suggests recovery, without describing medicine itself
- “Netflix” hints at internet-based entertainment
Because these names do not spell everything out, they are usually acceptable under trademark law and still work well from a branding perspective.
For many businesses, this is the sweet spot.
4. Arbitrary Names: Strong and Distinctive
Arbitrary trademarks use real dictionary words—but in a context completely unrelated to the product or service.
Classic examples include:
- Apple for computers and electronics
- Nike for footwear and apparel
These words already exist, but they have no natural connection to the goods they represent. Because of this disconnect, they strongly identify the brand rather than describe the product.
From a legal standpoint, arbitrary marks enjoy robust protection and are easier to enforce.
5. Fanciful Names: The Strongest Category
At the far end of the spectrum are fanciful trademarks—completely invented words with no prior meaning.
Examples include:
- “Kodak”
- “Xerox”
Because these names are created solely to function as brands, there is no confusion about their role. They do not describe anything; they exist only as identifiers.
Legally, these are the strongest trademarks possible.
What This Spectrum Means for Brand Owners
A simple rule emerges from this spectrum:
The more a trademark describes the product, the weaker it is.
The more it identifies the business, the stronger it becomes.
Many trademark objections arise not because a name is copied or similar, but because it sits too close to the descriptive end of this spectrum. Businesses that understand this early can make smarter naming decisions—and avoid costly corrections later.
If a brand name already feels like it is explaining the product, it is worth pausing and reconsidering before filing.
Descriptive Trademarks: What They Are and Why They Face Objections
A descriptive trademark is a trademark that directly describes the nature, quality, purpose, characteristics, or intended users of a product or service, instead of identifying the business behind it.
In practical terms, a descriptive trademark tells customers what the product is or what it does. It does not require any imagination. The meaning is immediate. While this may feel helpful from a marketing point of view, it is precisely why such marks often struggle under trademark law.
This is one of the most common reasons trademark applications are objected to or rejected in India.
Why Descriptive Trademarks Are Viewed Cautiously
Trademark law is not designed to reward clarity about a product. Its primary role is to protect names that help consumers identify the source of goods or services.
If descriptive words were freely registrable, competitors would be unfairly restricted from using ordinary language needed to describe their own products. For this reason, trademark examiners are cautious when a name appears to convey information rather than identity.
From an examiner’s perspective, the key concern is simple:
Does the name function as a brand, or does it merely explain the product?
When a trademark leans too heavily toward explanation, objections usually follow.
How Descriptiveness Is Assessed During Examination
In India, descriptiveness objections are typically raised under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Although the provision is legal in form, the test applied is practical.
Examiners consider how an average consumer would understand the mark on first impression. If the meaning is obvious and requires no interpretation or mental effort, the mark is likely to be treated as descriptive.
This is why many founders are surprised by objections. A name that feels creative internally may appear straightforward and descriptive to someone encountering it for the first time.
Common Patterns That Trigger Descriptiveness Objections
Certain types of names repeatedly attract objections:
- Names that describe the product itself
Diet Ice Cream, Herbal Shampoo - Names that highlight a quality or feature
Pure Honey, Fast Delivery - Names that explain a purpose or benefit
Pain Relief Gel, Instant Repair - Names that indicate the intended users
Kids Wear, Senior Care
These names are popular because they are easy to understand. Unfortunately, that same simplicity often works against them during trademark examination.
A Common Misunderstanding Among Brand Owners
One frequent misconception is that originality alone is enough. Even if a business coins a name independently and no competitor is using it, the mark can still be descriptive if it clearly communicates product information.
Trademark examiners are not asking whether the name was copied. They are asking whether the name acts as a source identifier.
Because of this, descriptive trademarks often:
- face higher objection rates,
- require extensive explanations or evidence to defend, and
- receive narrower protection even if registration is eventually granted.
Understanding this distinction early allows businesses to make informed decisions—either by strengthening the mark before filing or by preparing realistically for the challenges descriptiveness brings.
Can a Descriptive Trademark Still Be Registered? (Secondary Meaning Explained)
Once brand owners realise that their trademark is descriptive, the next question is almost inevitable:
Does this mean registration is impossible?
The answer is not always—but the path is narrow.
A descriptive trademark can be registered only if it has acquired what trademark law calls “secondary meaning,” also referred to as acquired distinctiveness.
What Secondary Meaning Really Means (In Practice)
Secondary meaning arises when a name that originally described a product stops being understood as a description and starts being recognised as a brand.
In simple terms, consumers no longer see the mark for what it says. They see it for who it represents.
That shift—from explanation to identification—is what trademark law looks for when deciding whether a descriptive mark deserves protection.
A well-known illustration is TripAdvisor. On its face, the name suggests advice related to travel. However, through long-term use, extensive promotion, and consistent branding, the public today associates the term with one specific company rather than with travel advice in general.
That association is secondary meaning.
Why Proving Secondary Meaning Is Difficult
While the concept sounds straightforward, proving secondary meaning is often challenging in practice.
Trademark examiners do not rely on claims or explanations. They rely on evidence. The burden lies entirely on the applicant to show that consumers associate the descriptive name with a single source.
This is where many applications fail—not because the brand lacks value, but because the evidence does not meet the legal threshold.
What Kind of Evidence Is Usually Expected
To establish secondary meaning, applicants typically need to submit a combination of materials such as:
- long and consistent use of the mark in the market,
- sales figures demonstrating commercial presence,
- advertising and promotional materials,
- marketing spend and brand campaigns,
- media coverage or independent press references, and
- proof that consumers recognise the mark as a brand.
There is no fixed checklist or guaranteed formula. Examiners assess the evidence as a whole, taking into account the nature of the mark, the goods or services involved, and the competitive landscape.
Simply asserting that a mark is well known is not enough—the association must be demonstrated through documents.
Why Many Descriptive Marks Still Do Not Succeed
Even when evidence is submitted, descriptive trademarks remain difficult to defend.
This is because:
- competitors may legitimately need to use similar descriptive words,
- the scope of protection granted is often narrow, and
- enforcement against similar marks can be challenging.
As a result, many applicants face repeated objections, hearings, or partial refusals when relying on secondary meaning.
Success stories exist, but they are exceptions, not the rule.
A Practical Perspective for Brand Owners
Secondary meaning is not a shortcut—it is usually the result of years of consistent use, not something that can be created at the time of filing.
For early-stage businesses and new brands, relying on acquired distinctiveness is often risky. In most cases, choosing a trademark that is distinctive or suggestive from the outset offers a clearer and more predictable path to registration.
Understanding this early allows brand owners to make informed decisions—either by refining a descriptive name before filing or by preparing realistically for the evidentiary demands that come with descriptiveness.
Not Sure Your Trademark Descriptive or Distinctive?
Before filing a trademark—or responding to an examination report—it helps to know whether a brand name is likely to be seen as descriptive or distinctive under Indian trademark law. A short review can clarify risks and next steps.
How to Tell If Your Trademark Is Descriptive (Before Filing)
Once the difference between descriptive and distinctive trademarks is clear, the natural next question is a practical one:
How do you know where your own trademark stands?
Before filing an application—or responding to an objection—it helps to step back and look at the name from the perspective of someone encountering it for the first time. The checks below are simple, but they reflect the way trademark examiners actually think.
1. The “What Is It?” Test
Ask a basic question:
If a customer sees the name for the first time, does it immediately tell them what the product or service is?
If the answer is yes, the mark is likely descriptive.
If some imagination or interpretation is required, the mark is more likely distinctive.
For example:
- “Pain Relief Gel” explains exactly what the product does → descriptive
- “Moov” does not explain the product directly → distinctive
The faster the answer comes, the higher the risk of a descriptiveness objection.
2. The Dictionary Meaning Test
Trademark examiners often look at dictionary meanings, even when a name sounds creative.
Ask yourself:
- Is the word commonly used in everyday language?
- Does it already carry a meaning connected to the product or service?
If the dictionary meaning closely matches what is being offered, the mark may be considered descriptive—even if it sounds attractive from a branding perspective.
A name does not need to be boring to be descriptive. It only needs to be obvious.
3. The Competitor Need Test
A useful practical question is:
Would other businesses need to use this word or phrase to describe their own products or services?
Trademark law generally avoids granting exclusive rights over terms that competitors must use in ordinary trade. Words such as “organic,” “pure,” “fast,” or “premium” often fall into this category.
If removing the word would make it difficult for others to describe their offerings honestly, objections are more likely.
4. The Imagination Test
Consider whether the trademark requires a mental step to connect it with the product.
Suggestive and distinctive marks usually require a moment of thought. Descriptive marks do not.
If the name creates a picture, an idea, or an association—rather than a direct description—it is more likely to be acceptable. If the meaning is instant and literal, the mark may be seen as descriptive.
5. How the Name Is Used in Practice
Sometimes the problem is not the word itself, but how it is used.
Ask:
- Is the name displayed prominently as a brand?
- Or is it used like a product description or feature on packaging, websites, or advertisements?
If the name is consistently used in a descriptive manner, examiners may view it the same way, even if the word itself could have been positioned as a brand.
Usage matters.
6. A Reality Check on Length of Use
If a trademark appears descriptive, consider the practical side:
- How long has the name been used?
- Is there evidence that customers associate the name with one business?
- Are there sales figures, advertisements, or media references to support that claim?
Without strong evidence of recognition, defending a descriptive trademark becomes difficult. For newer brands, relying on future recognition is often risky.
Putting It All Together
If most of these tests point toward description rather than identification, the trademark may face objections under Section 9. That does not automatically end the discussion—but it does mean the risks should be understood before filing.
A short evaluation at this stage can help decide whether to:
- refine the name,
- add a distinctive element, or
- prepare realistically for examination challenges.
This kind of early assessment often saves far more time and cost than dealing with objections after filing.
Conclusion: Choosing the Right Trademark from the Start
Choosing a trademark is not just a creative exercise—it is a legal decision that can shape the future of a brand. One of the most common reasons trademark applications face objections or refusals in India is that the proposed name is descriptive rather than distinctive.
Descriptive trademarks may explain a product clearly, but they often struggle to function as brand identifiers. Distinctive trademarks, on the other hand, help consumers recognise the source of goods or services and enjoy stronger, more reliable legal protection. While some descriptive marks can acquire distinctiveness over time, that path is usually long, uncertain, and dependent on strong evidence.
For many businesses, the safest approach is to think about trademark strength early—before filing an application or investing heavily in branding. Names that require some imagination, or that are unrelated to the product itself, tend to face fewer objections and are easier to protect and enforce in the long run.
Understanding where a trademark sits on the distinctiveness spectrum allows brand owners to make informed choices. Whether that means refining a name, adding a distinctive element, or preparing for examination challenges, clarity at the outset often saves significant time, cost, and frustration later.
A good trademark does more than describe a product.
A strong trademark builds identity, trust, and legal certainty.
If there is any doubt about how a proposed trademark might be viewed, a short evaluation before filing can provide valuable direction and help avoid unnecessary obstacles.
