Why “SWIPE LEFT” Was Rejected — and How to Avoid the Same Mistake


June 9, 2025

Can you trademark a phrase everyone uses?

Hello Reader,

In a recent decision, the USPTO rejected Tinder’s applications to register “SWIPE LEFT” for its dating app and services. Why? Because “SWIPE LEFT” was found to be:

Merely descriptive — It directly describes what users do in the app to reject a match.
Fails to function as a trademark — It’s a common phrase that conveys a familiar idea: rejection.

Tinder submitted two consumer surveys trying to show people associate the phrase with their brand. But the surveys didn’t prove that the phrase actually functions as a source identifier—the key requirement for any trademark. The Board noted the surveys tested “association,” not whether the public saw the phrase as a brand, and association alone isn’t enough.

Even if you coined the phrase (as Tinder claimed they did), if it becomes common slang—or if it just describes how your product works—it's probably not protectable.

Tip: Before applying, ask:

  • Does this phrase describe how my product works?
  • Would others reasonably want to use this phrase too?
  • Do people already use it as a common saying?

If the answer is “yes” to any of those, you may need a more distinctive mark—or at least file on the Supplemental Register if eligible.

Bottom line: Descriptive or widely used phrases like “SWIPE LEFT” may make for great branding... but not great trademarks.

Want to avoid costly refusals? We can help evaluate your mark before you file.

Keep Your Brand Safe and Protected,

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

P.S. This isn’t just a Tinder problem. The same refusal can hit businesses using any popular or descriptive phrase—whether you're selling software, shirts, or supplements. Better to find out now than after the USPTO says “no.”

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
Two bright cosmic objects are connected in darkness.

June 30, 2025 TMtelegram Hello Reader, In May 2025, the Federal Circuit upheld the USPTO’s refusal to register the mark US SPACE FORCE—but not for the reason most people expect. The issue wasn’t likelihood of confusion. It was something else: false suggestion of a connection. This refusal falls under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which bars registration of any mark that falsely suggests a link with: A person (living or dead) An institution A belief or A national symbol In this case, the...

a black and white photo of the supreme court

June 23, 2025 TMtelegram Hello Reader, A recent case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) highlights a hard truth: you can lose a trademark dispute not because your argument is wrong—but because your paperwork is incomplete. In Superior Brands v. Retrobrands America, Superior tried to cancel a Supplemental Register trademark (KINNEY SHOES) based on a likelihood of confusion with their own intent-to-use application for a similar mark. Their argument? Their application was filed...

Someone is looking at a map of the united states.

June 16, 2025 TMtelegram Hello Reader, Think your trademark is safe because another business with a similar name is far away? Think again. Recent cases confirm that geographical distance no longer guarantees protection from trademark infringement claims. With online commerce bridging physical gaps, consumers can easily be confused—even across great distances. Always do a thorough nationwide trademark search before you settle on a brand name. And remember, federal registration of your...