Understanding U.S. Trademark Law: How to Come Up with a Name When Everything Feels Taken

Introduction

If you’ve ever tried to name a business, product, or creative project, you’ve probably run into this familiar frustration: every idea you love already seems to exist. You search the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database, find a conflict, and suddenly the naming process feels less creative and more demoralizing.

But here’s the truth: you’re not alone, and you’re not doing anything wrong.

Even the most iconic American brands have wrestled with naming. Some settled. Others stumbled into their final names by mistake. Many made last-minute pivots. And most encountered the same trademark constraints and legal standards that you’re facing now.

This post is designed to normalize those frustrations and give you a roadmap for creating a strong, distinctive, and legally defensible name. We’ll blend storytelling from U.S.-based brand origin stories with practical trademark law insights under the Lanham Act and USPTO practice.

---

Why Naming Feels So Hard

Most people assume there’s a one-name-per-class rule in trademark law: one name + one class = one owner. But the actual standard in U.S. trademark law is much more nuanced. Under the Lanham Act, trademarks function as source identifiers, and rights are determined by whether a name is likely to cause confusion with an existing mark in the minds of consumers.[1]

In plain terms, this means:

– Two businesses can use the same or similar name if they operate in completely different industries.
– Trademark rights are specific to the goods and services listed in the application.
– USPTO examiners and courts assess whether consumers would believe that the goods or services originate from the same source.

This context-driven framework explains why naming can feel impossible at first: your search results often feel overwhelming but not all of them are true legal barriers.

---

Famous U.S. Brands that Didn’t Start With the “Perfect” Name

Google

Google’s name came from a misspelling. The founders initially meant to reference the mathematical term “googol” (10 to the 100th power) to emphasize the company’s goal of indexing massive amounts of information. A friend checked domain availability, mistyped it as “Google,” and the team stuck with the typo.[2]

Lesson: Arbitrary or unusual names can work brilliantly when they’re backed by a great product and vision.

Nike

When Nike transitioned from Blue Ribbon Sports in 1971, co-founder Phil Knight disliked the name “Nike.” He preferred “Dimension Six,” but employees rejected it. With production deadlines looming, the team chose Nike, named after the Greek goddess of victory, despite Knight’s reservations.[3]

Lesson: You don’t have to love your name at first sight for it to become legendary.

Starbucks

The Starbucks name emerged after failed alternatives like “Pequod” and “Cargo House.” The founders eventually landed on “Starbucks,” a name inspired by the first mate in Moby-Dick and shaped by branding instincts that favored evocative “St” sounds.[4]

Lesson: Evocative beats literal. A name with emotional resonance can outperform a descriptive one.

Apple

Steve Jobs named his tech company “Apple” because it sounded simple, friendly, and came before “Atari” in the phone book. He wanted to distance the brand from cold, technical-sounding competitors. There was no direct connection to technology at the time.[5]

Lesson: Arbitrary names are often the most powerful and flexible in the long term.

Instagram

Originally launched as “Burbn,” the app was cluttered with features. Once the founders focused on photo-sharing, they simplified the product and renamed it Instagram, which is a blend of “instant” and “telegram.”[6]

Lesson: Renaming after product clarity is not failure but rather evolution.

---

Understanding U.S. Trademark Law: Why Similar Names Can Coexist

Likelihood of Confusion

Trademark law under the Lanham Act doesn’t guarantee exclusivity over a word in all contexts. Instead, it asks: would consumers be confused into believing two brands come from the same source?[1]
This analysis considers factors like:

– How similar the marks look and sound – How related the goods/services are – The marketing channels used
– The sophistication of consumers

Classes Are Administrative, Not Absolute

The USPTO’s classification system (Classes 1-45) organizes applications by industry, but it’s not a siloed system. Two identical trademarks can coexist in the same class if they relate to very different goods.

Example: “Delta” is a valid mark for both airline services and faucet manufacturing, which are registered by different owners, because no one expects faucets and flights to come from the same company.[7]

Real-Life Coexistence Examples:

– Dove is registered for both chocolate (Mars) and soap (Unilever)
– United is used by airlines, healthcare firms, and shipping services
– Pandora represents both a jewelry company and a music streaming service

These cases demonstrate how coexistence hinges on the perception of distinct commercial impressions.

---

Why Your Favorite Names Keep “Failing” Searches

Good names are often:

– Short
– Descriptive or evocative
– Easy to pronounce

Because of that, they tend to be more frequently filed and appear often in trademark search results. But many of those hits are:

– Inactive
– Abandoned
– Operating in unrelated markets
– Registered by companies that never used the mark commercially

Don’t panic at a crowded result. A clearance attorney can help determine what’s truly a risk.

---

How to Name Something Without Losing Your Mind

A more realistic (and less heart-breaking) naming process looks like this:

– Start with meaning, not availability. In early brainstorming, focus on what feelings, values, or vibe you want the name to evoke. Don’t focus on whether the .com is free or the USPTO is clear. Generate names that are suggestive or even completely arbitrary with respect to your product. These have the best shots at being unique and legally protectable. (Coined or unexpected names tend to survive both trademark review and brand evolution better than on-the-nose descriptive ones[21].) Don’t self-censor too early. The goal at this stage is a list of names that inspire you and match your brand’s personality, even if they sound “weird” at first. Remember, Google sounded weird at first. So did Hulu, Spotify, Etsy, and they are all now household names.

– Expect the first search to be discouraging – that’s part of the process. The first time you plug your beloved name into a trademark search, you might get a flood of hits. This doesn’t mean the name is dead in the water; it means you’ve got homework to do. Professional naming firms and trademark lawyers rarely find a name that’s 100% clear on the first try. Instead, they iterate. They identify what conflicts are real vs. which are merely similar in appearance. Refine your list by eliminating names that collide with obviously similar, same-industry brands. For the remaining candidates, consider tweaks that could help avoid confusion (a slight change in spelling or adding a unique modifier, perhaps). Clearance is about managing risk, not finding a mythical name that nobody in history has ever used. If your search comes back with zero results, that can be a red flag because it might mean your name is so fanciful or strange that it doesn’t resonate with anyone. So, embrace the search process as a refining step, not a pass/fail test.

– Let the name grow into the brand. Once you’ve vetted a name and it’s time to commit, give it room to breathe. It’s normal if the name doesn’t feel perfectly aligned with your product on day one. Most names gain meaning from the product and story you build around them, not the other way around. Jeff Bezos admitted that when he chose “Amazon” for his online bookstore, it was just an ambitious metaphor (world’s biggest river → world’s biggest selection); the name didn’t scream “books” or “online” at all. Over time, Amazon became synonymous with an everything-store because of how the brand delivered on the name’s promise. The same goes for Apple (a friendly tech experience), Nike (the spirit of victory), and every other example above. The company made the name iconic, not the other way around. So instead of obsessing over a name being a perfect description of your offering, ask whether it’s memorable, distinctive, and elastic enough to grow with your brand. If it is, you can shape the narrative to give that name meaning through marketing, customer experience, and time.

Throughout this process, keep perspective. Naming is hard for everyone. It’s a maze of creative hurdles and legal checkpoints. If you’re feeling discouraged, remember you’re in excellent company. The founders of Google, Nike, Apple, Starbucks, Instagram all hit the same wall and pushed through.

---

Legal Considerations and Pitfalls to Avoid

– Avoid purely descriptive terms: These are difficult to register and enforce (e.g., “Cold Beer” for beer).
– Be cautious with geographic names: These are generally weaker and less protectable.
– Don’t copy famous marks: Even in unrelated fields, famous marks like “Google” or “Tesla” enjoy broad protection.
– Check for prior common law use: Rights can exist even without federal registration, based on actual use in commerce.

---

Final Thoughts: What You Really Need Is “Good Enough”

Your goal isn’t to find a perfect name that no one has ever thought of. It’s to find a name that:

– Has meaning to your audience
– Is distinctive enough to avoid confusion
– Can legally stand on its own

If naming feels impossible, that usually means you’re on the right track. Every great brand name once felt uncertain. The difference is that someone moved forward anyway and let the brand make the name famous.

---

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on your specific situation, consult a licensed trademark attorney.

---

Alexander R. Karana is an Intellectual Property and International attorney at Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC (CMDA) and is admitted to practice in Michigan, Illinois, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He focuses on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, and entertainment law. Alexander has been recognized by Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America and Super Lawyers: Rising Stars for his work in IP, Patent and Sports & Entertainment law.

Contact: Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC
17436 College Parkway
Livonia, MI 48152
AKarana@cmda-law.com
www.cmda-law.com

---

Endnotes

1. USPTO Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP), Section 1207.01 – https://tmep.uspto.gov

2. Levy, S. (2011). In the Plex: How Google Thinks, Works, and Shapes Our Lives.

3. Knight, P. (2016). Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike.

4. Schultz, H. (2011). Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul.

5. Isaacson, W. (2011). Steve Jobs.

6. Systrom, K. (2012). Instagram Company Blog Archive.

7. USPTO Registration Nos. 1308058 (Delta Air Lines) and 0812345 (Delta Faucet).