A federal judge dismissed a trademark suit brought by a North Carolina law firm branding itself the “Beer Law Center” against a Colorado firm calling itself “Beer Law HQ”—on jurisdictional grounds. But the case raises a deeper question: when your mark is highly descriptive, how defensible is it really?

Meanwhile, Autodesk sued Google over the “Flow” name for video production software, and Google’s “Gemini” AI service faces suit over an allegedly decades-old trademark.

The takeaway: Invest in distinctiveness from the start. Descriptive marks require more evidence of secondary meaning, cost more to enforce, and are harder to defend. A creative, distinctive mark is cheaper to protect in the long run than a descriptive one is to salvage.

If your branding team loves a name that “says what we do”—push back. The trademark that stands out is the one worth protecting.

Are any of your current marks vulnerable because they’re too descriptive?

Lean more about Miller Johnson’s Trademark Prosecution group. Questions? Contact Brandon Griffith.