It’s a point we have to make far more often than we should: trademark law is not designed to allow anyone or any company to simply lock up common language as their own. There are lots of ways the confusion around that expresses itself, but one of the most common concerns generic terms for goods and services. Yes, you can trademark Coca-Cola. No, you cannot trademark “soda.” Yes, you can trademark “Apple” for computers. No, you cannot trademark “apples” for your apple-farming company. See? Not too hard!

For us, at least. For the folks at Snap, however, the point seems to elude them. Snap has a line of augmented reality glasses and has unhelpfully decided to name the product “Spectacles.” When Snap applied for a trademark on the name of the product, the USPTO managed to actually get it right and denied the application over the generic nature of the term.

But rather than slinking away with a sly smile at the failed attempt to get one over on the USPTO, Snap has now sued the USPTO instead.

The USPTO rejected Snap’s trademark application for the name in 2020, finding it trademark-ineligible because it was either generic or descriptive. A USPTO tribunal affirmed the decision later that year. Snap asked the California court in 2022 to force the USPTO to grant the trademark, and said that potential buyers think of “Spectacles” as a Snap brand instead of a generic term for smart glasses.

The USPTO asked the court last year to grant it a win without a trial.

And the court just recently denied the USPTO’s request and is allowing the trial to move forward. Why? I have no real idea. The U.S. Magistrate Judge cited “competing evidence” that needed to be sorted out in an actual trial, but I truly can’t understand what in the world that competing evidence would be. The only specifics in the judge’s order reference surveys and expert testimony as to whether the public associates the term “spectacles” with glasses in general, or with Snap’s product. And I suspect the court is allowing this to go to trial mostly as a procedural result, since the burden at this stage would be on the USPTO to demonstrate that the evidence in the case is one-sided to get a judgement without trial.

And the judge apparently thinks it’s not one-sided enough. So now this goes to trial, where one would hope it ultimately becomes a win for the USPTO.