Absolute Grounds for Invalidity

Absolute grounds for invalidity refer to certain criteria that, if not met, can make a trademark invalid from the moment of registration. These criteria are independent of any other trademarks or prior use of the mark.

In most countries, the absolute grounds for invalidity include:

Lack of distinctiveness: A trademark must be capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one business from those of another. If a trademark is too generic or descriptive, it may not be distinctive enough to serve as a trademark.
Deceptiveness: A trademark cannot be deceptive or misleading, and must not falsely suggest a connection with another business or product.
Immorality: A trademark cannot be contrary to public policy or morality, such as marks that promote hate or discrimination.
Descriptiveness: A trademark that describes the characteristics, qualities or intended purpose of the goods or services cannot be registered unless it has acquired a secondary meaning through long-term use and association with a specific business.
Generic terms: A trademark that consists solely of a generic term or phrase that describes the goods or services cannot be registered as a trademark.

Register your trademark in 3 simple steps

Trademark registration process made seamless, thanks to our experienced trademark attorneys and technology.

Related terms

From our blog

Liability of parody trademarks: the case of Jack Daniel's vs Bad Spaniels

Satirical adaptations of well-known brands have become a common thing and profitable market for many lesser-known companies. Besides being an effective mean to attract more customers, parody products can also be a good defence against trademark lawsuits, as in many cases, brand owners have limited options to enforce their rights against satirical adaptations.

When should I register my trademark?

Timing is everything, and this is especially true when it comes to trademark registration. Choosing to trademark your brand at the right time is much more important than you would think.

Perceived similarity of trademarks: Lessons from Starbucks trademark disputes

One of the most common reasons for trademark disputes has to do with the perceived similarity between existing trademarks. The two trademarks are considered “similar” if they share common characteristics connected to their appearance, sound, meaning and commercial impression, and if they are used for related goods or services. This is seen as a problem from brand perspective because the consumers might believe that the owners of the two trademarks are related, affiliated, connected, or that the goods or services originate from the same source.

Related IP cases

R 1023/2016-4

Starbucks Corporation v. Hellenic Milk and Flour Industry S.A. (EVGA)

Subject matter: Complementary evidence, Conceptual similarity, Database printout, Distinctive element, Dominant element, Enhanced distinctiveness, Evidence of use, Identity of goods and services, Likelihood of confusion, Nature of the goods and services, New submission on appeal, Phonetic similarity, Press articles, Proof of use, Purpose of the goods and services, Reputation, Similarity of goods and services, Substantiation of earlier right, Visual similarity, Weak element

R1826/2016-5

Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. (INDITEX, S.A.) v. Nittis OÜ

Subject matter: Likelihood of confusion, Phonetic similarity

R0019/2000-1

Muswellbrook, Ltd. v. Nike International Ltd.

Subject matter: Coexistence of trade marks, Competence of the boards, New submission on appeal, Proof of use, Request for proof of use, Standard letter, Use not as registered