Naming Your Brand in Spanish or Italian? The USPTO Translates It First
"My brand name is in Spanish. Since it isn't an English word, doesn't that make it automatically unique?" No. The USPTO translates non-English wording into English first, then judges it the way it would judge the English. A Spanish or Italian word for something descriptive is treated as descriptive. And a foreign word that means the same thing as someone else's English mark can be blocked as confusingly similar.
For founders in Miami, Tampa or anywhere customers switch languages mid-sentence, this rule shapes which names you can actually own.
The doctrine of foreign equivalents
The rule has a name: the doctrine of foreign equivalents. Under it, the examining attorney translates the non-English wording in your mark and then asks the usual questions. Is it generic? Is it merely descriptive? Is it too close to a mark already registered?
The doctrine applies unless it's unlikely that the ordinary American purchaser would stop and translate the word. That "ordinary American purchaser" includes Americans who speak other languages. The examination manual says census data can show a language is common in the United States, and it names Spanish, Italian, French, German, Chinese, Japanese, Russian and Greek. For those languages, assume your word will be translated.
The Federal Circuit confirmed how far this goes in May 2025. A fashion label applied to register VETEMENTS, the French word for clothing, for clothing and online clothing stores. The court held the word generic once translated. It rejected the argument that most Americans would have to understand the word; an appreciable number of people who could translate it was enough. The Supreme Court declined to take the case in January 2026, so that decision stands.
Descriptive in Spanish is descriptive in English
The practical result is that a foreign equivalent of descriptive or generic English wording is no more registrable than the English wording itself. The manual's examples make the point. IMÁGENES ESCONDIDAS, Spanish for "hidden pictures," was held merely descriptive for children's books and magazines. SAPORITO, Italian for "tasty," was held merely descriptive for dry sausage.
So picture a hypothetical Miami bakery that wants to register PAN FRESCO for bread. The USPTO would read it as FRESH BREAD, and it would likely face the same refusal FRESH BREAD would. A hypothetical Italian gelato brand called DOLCE CREMA would be read as SWEET CREAM. Changing languages doesn't change what the words tell a customer about the product. Descriptive names are weak names, in any language.
Mixing languages can help, though, when the mix creates something new. The manual points to GLACÉ LITE for frozen desserts, which wasn't merely descriptive because the French-English combination made an incongruous expression. And a coined blend like FELIZCITY, which plays on an English word, doesn't even require a translation of the Spanish part.
Same meaning, different language: likelihood of confusion
The doctrine also works in the other direction. If someone already owns an English mark, your foreign-language mark with the same meaning can be refused as likely to cause confusion. In one case, MARAZUL, Spanish for "blue sea," was found likely to be confused with BLUE SEA. In another, MARCHE NOIR, French for "black market," was refused over BLACK MARKET MINERALS.
That's why the USPTO searches the English translation of your mark, not just the words as you spelled them. A clearance search before you file should do the same thing, in both languages.
Matching meaning isn't automatically the end of it. Examiners still compare how the marks look and sound and the overall impression they create. If the shared meaning is weak or laudatory for the goods, or other wording sets the marks apart, a conflict may not hold up. And when the two marks are in two different foreign languages, the Board generally doesn't apply the doctrine, since few buyers would be fluent in both.
When the USPTO doesn't translate
The doctrine is a guideline, not an absolute rule, and there are real exceptions:
- The translation isn't literal and direct, or the word carries other shades of meaning.
- The language is dead or obscure.
- The setting makes translation unlikely. TIA MARIA for a restaurant with Mexican décor was an example where diners would take the name at face value.
- The word has its own established meaning in English, like CORDON BLEU, or it reads as a first name, like RICARDO.
Foreign words that already appear in English dictionaries, like croissant or fiesta, generally don't need a translation at all.
The translation statement in your application
Every application for a mark that includes non-English wording has to include an English translation, in a set format: "The English translation of the word ___ in the mark is ___." If your word has no meaning in any language, you say that instead. The translation should be the meaning the words carry in the United States, not a word-for-word one, and it gets printed on the registration.
Leaving it out costs money now. For applications filed on or after January 18, 2025, a missing translation can trigger the $100 per class insufficient information surcharge. The full fee picture has the other surcharges worth avoiding.
Don't fudge the translation to dodge a descriptiveness problem, either. Examiners look up the meaning themselves using dictionaries, translation resources and the web.
How to name in two languages
Translate your shortlist before you fall in love with a name. If the English version would describe the product, the Spanish or Italian version will too. Search both languages. And use the second language for flavor, not description: a hypothetical MARIPOSA (butterfly) for bookkeeping software has nothing to do with the service, which is exactly what makes it strong.
If you're weighing names in more than one language, you can see how the search and filing packages work on the services page, and the FAQs page answers most of what comes up before a first call.
Book a free 15-minute discovery call with the attorney (opens in a new tab)
(No legal advice is given on the discovery call. It's a chance to tell me what you're building and hear how the process works.)
Sources
- TMEP § 1207.01(b)(vi) and subsections (doctrine of foreign equivalents; likelihood of confusion): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e5616.html (opens in a new tab)
- TMEP § 1209.03(g) (foreign equivalents of descriptive and generic wording): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e7736.html (opens in a new tab)
- TMEP § 809 and subsections (translation statements; insufficient information fee): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-800d1e2300.html (opens in a new tab)
- In re Vetements Group AG, Nos. 2023-2050, 2023-2051 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2025): https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/23-2050.OPINION.5-21-2025_2518135.pdf (opens in a new tab)
- Supreme Court docket No. 25-215, Vetements Group AG v. Stewart (certiorari denied January 12, 2026): https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-215.html (opens in a new tab)
- USPTO, trademark fee information (fees effective January 18, 2025): https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/trademark-fee-information (opens in a new tab)
This article is general information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.
