⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Federal Circuit hears Givn Goods versus Squires. Givn sells bottled drinking water under the registered name GIVN, pronounced “given.” IBMG sought federal registration of that same name for cosmetics and online beauty retail services. Givn opposed those applications, saying shoppers would mistakenly assume a common source. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Patent and Trademark Office’s trademark tribunal, dismissed both oppositions. Although the names were identical and Givn’s mark was distinctive, the Board found insufficient evidence connecting the products or their sales channels. Some of Givn’s evidence was excluded, including material submitted too late in the proceedings. Givn now appeals; the Patent and Trademark Office’s director is defending the decision. Section two-d of the Trademark Act bars registration when a proposed mark is likely to cause confusion with an existing protected mark. The du Pont factors are the considerations courts weigh, including the names, relatedness of products, where they are sold, and purchasers’ care. Identical names matter greatly, but the question is whether consumers would expect a common source, not simply whether the names match. You will hear a distinction between conceptual strength—how distinctive a name is—and commercial strength—how widely shoppers recognize it. An arbitrary mark uses an ordinary word unrelated to the product; a fanciful mark is an invented word. Givn will argue that identical, strong marks and inexpensive purchases required less proof connecting water and cosmetics, and that the Board applied the wrong legal standard. Giulio Yaquinto will represent the director, maintaining that the Board used the correct test and Givn failed to supply enough evidence. Legal questions receive fresh review, called de novo; factual findings receive substantial-evidence review, which asks whether a reasonable mind could accept the supporting evidence.

Givn Goods, Inc. v. Squires (No. 25-1681) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, argued October 7, 2026.