Trademark Tip: Don’t Get Too “Wyse” with Your Brand Name


April 21, 2025

Hello Reader,

Here’s another real-world lesson from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that highlights two common pitfalls brand owners face:

🔁 Choosing a name that’s too close to an existing mark
🔁 Using a last name without understanding the trademark limits

The case involved Wyse London, a fashion brand that applied to register its name for clothing and retail store services. But the USPTO refused registration on two separate grounds—and the TTAB agreed.

Here’s What Went Wrong:

1. Likelihood of Confusion (Section 2(d))
The TTAB found that WYSE LONDON was too similar to an existing registration for WYSE (in stylized form), which covered clothing accessories like buttons, zippers, and hat ornaments. Even though the goods weren’t identical, the Board held that:
✔ The marks are “highly similar”
✔ The goods are related and often sold under the same brand
✔ Consumers could easily assume both come from the same source

Pro tip: Just because products are in different classes doesn’t mean they’re safe from conflict. Zippers and hats? Still too close.

2. Surname Refusal (Section 2(e)(4))
Because the company’s founder is Marielle Wyse, and the brand openly promotes this, the TTAB held that WYSE is primarily merely a surname—which can’t be registered on the Principal Register without proving acquired distinctiveness.

Adding “LONDON” didn’t help. The Board noted that it just made it sound like “a brand run by someone named Wyse in London”—which was literally true and didn’t change the surname analysis.

Tips & Tricks to Avoid These Issues:

Search first, build later – Don’t invest in packaging, branding, or a product launch until you know your name clears key legal hurdles.
Surnames are tricky – If your name is on the door, you may need to prove that consumers recognize it as a brand—not just a family name.
Consider creative add-ons – Adding unique, suggestive, or fanciful elements to a surname can improve your chances of approval.

Naming a brand is hard enough—don’t let a simple refusal set you back months (or years). If you're not sure whether your brand name is safe, a quick strategy session could save you thousands.

Keep Your Brand Safe and Protected,

J.J. Lee and the Trademark Lawyer Law Firm Team!

P.S. If you’re planning to use your last name in your brand or launch a line of clothing or accessories, let’s check for conflicts first. The TTAB isn’t too forgiving when it comes to surnames or sound-alike marks.

J.J. Lee, Trademark Attorney

Learn something new every Thursday! Join over 4,000 entrepreneurs and business owners for weekly Trademark tips, tricks, and news.

Read more from J.J. Lee, Trademark Attorney

June 2, 2025 TMtelegram Hello Reader, When you apply for a trademark, one of the things the USPTO checks is whether your drawing matches how you actually use the mark. If it doesn’t—especially if you’ve carved out just a piece of the full brand name—you might get hit with a refusal for “mutilation.” Yes, that’s a real trademark term. And it just tripped up a pharmaceutical company. In In re Verrica Pharmaceuticals Inc., the company applied to register a stylized "V" with three dots above it,...

June 2, 2025 TMtelegram Hello Reader, Color trademarks can be powerful brand assets—but they’re not easy to register. A recent case involving dark green medical gloves shows just how high the bar is. Green Gloves In In re PT Medisafe Technologies, the company tried to register the color Pantone 3285 C (dark green) for chloroprene medical examination gloves. They claimed it functioned as a trademark for their brand. The USPTO refused registration, and the Federal Circuit agreed, calling the...

A cheese knife rests on a wooden table.

May 19, 2025 TMtelegram Hello Reader, Here’s a recent reminder from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB): sometimes, the name you pick for your product is just too on the nose to protect. That was the case in In re Jacobs Corporation, where the company tried to register the word BLADE as a trademark for a “hammer sold as an integral component of hammer mill machines.” The USPTO said no—and the TTAB backed them up. Why? Let’s break it down: 🔍 Jacobs argued: Their product is a hammer,...