A suggestive trademark gives the consumer some idea of what the goods or services connected to the mark are. In legalese, the consumer has to make “several mental leaps” to determine what the product is. Like, arguably, us, Briefly. 

‍

These trademarks are generally stronger than marks that are just descriptive names, but weaker than those with invented or names unrelated to the business they are connected to. Unlike most descriptive or generic terms, suggestive terms are generally protectable as trademarks. (Generic terms are never protectable and descriptive can sometimes become protectible - but that is a story for another video.)

‍

On the continuum of trademarks, from the strongest (made up terms and names that are unrelated to the product or service) to weakest (generic terms, which get no trademark protection at all), suggestive marks occupy the middle ground. Suggestive names are usually trademarkable. And they can be great names, because they can help with brand recognition - think Netflix, or Microsoft.

‍

There is a fine line between descriptive and suggestive marks. If your mark gets a “descriptiveness refusal,” you’ll need to argue that the mark is actually suggestive, and not descriptive - that the consumer has to make those mental leaps to know what the product or service is. 

‍

THINK:

Coppertone

Hmm… Makes you tan?

Microsoft

Software… for small computers…

Netflix

Movies rented, and later watched, over the internet...

Amtrak

Suggestive or descriptive? Maybe this is getting close to “descriptive”?

‍

There’s no bright line rules - so be ready for the argument that a name is suggestive - that it requires several mental leaps for a consumer to know that the product is.