Whose Name Is in Your Mark? How Applicants Cleared Section 2(c) Letters With a Statement, a Signed Consent or the Name's Origin

You are in this situation if your Office action asks whether a name, nickname or title in your mark belongs to a living person, demands that person's signed consent, or refuses the mark under Section 2(c). Its wording tells you which of three letters you have:

An inquiry that attaches pages about a real person ("However, the attached Internet evidence shows that ...") behaves like the second row (see EARL OF SANDWICH).

Before you argue

Section 2(c) "absolutely bars the registration of these marks on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register" (TMEP 1206), and "it is inappropriate to assert acquired distinctiveness to contravene a refusal under §2(a), (b), (c), (d), or (e)(5)" (TMEP 1212.02(a)), so neither the Supplemental Register nor a Section 2(f) claim answers it. A refusal of your name as primarily merely a surname is a different refusal, with different routes.

Two quick checks. First, "An applicant does not have to submit a new consent if a consent to register is already part of the record in the file of a valid registration" of the same name for the same goods (TMEP 1206.04(c)). Second, if the name is your own, "Consent may be presumed only where the individual whose name or likeness appears in the mark personally signs the application" (TMEP 1206.04(b)); a signature by someone else needs your separate consent.

ANDRÉ ASSOUS FEATHERWEIGHTS used the first: it told the examiner the consent was of record in its earlier registration and was approved three days later.

If you decide to answer: three routes that cleared a name letter

Two of the three routes are filings. The test behind all three: "Whether consent to registration is required depends on whether the public would recognize and understand the mark as identifying a particular living individual." Consent is required only if the person is "(1) so well known that the public would reasonably assume a connection between the person and the goods or services, or (2) publicly connected with the business in which the mark is used" (TMEP 1206.02).

Whichever you choose, the statement goes into the response form and the consent is a separate document the person signs and you attach; a sentence saying consent exists is not the consent.

1. The name is no living person (the statement under TMEP 1206.05)

The rule: "If it appears that a name, portrait, or signature in a mark may identify a particular living individual but, in fact, the applicant devised the matter as fanciful, or believes it to be fanciful, the applicant may be required to submit a statement to that effect" and "The applicant should explain any additional relevant circumstances" (TMEP 1206.05). The dead are outside the rule: "Section 2(c) does not apply to marks that comprise matter that identifies deceased persons, except for a deceased president of the United States during the life of the president’s widow" (TMEP 1206).

When it fits: the name is invented, a character, or belongs to someone who has died, and the letter shows no living person behind it. A full name draws the question by rule: "If a mark contains a full name, ... the examining attorney must issue an inquiry" (TMEP 1206.03).

What to file: the sentence the letters suggest ("The name shown in the mark does not identify a particular living individual."), plus any fact behind it in a line of your own. Where the examiner already had, or went on to find, evidence of a living person using the name, the bare statement failed in both refused files below.

In their words. MILES MORETTI's next letter: "The manner in which applicant responded to the Name of Individual Inquiry is inconsistent with evidence made of record, and thus the refusal below is now issuing." EARL OF SANDWICH's final refusal: "As applicant provided no explanation as to how the mark identifies, yet does not identify, a living person, this requirement is maintained and made final."

The pattern: the statement ended the letter when the examiner had no living person in view: a name the examiner asked about by rule, a man who had died. It failed where the examiner found a living person using the name, on the web or on the applicant's own site.

2. Name the person and file a signed consent (TMEP 1206.04(a))

The rule: "The consent must be a written consent to the registration of the identifying matter as a mark, and, in the case of a living individual, must be personally signed by the individual whose name, signature, or likeness appears in the mark." And: "Consent to use of a mark does not constitute consent to register" (TMEP 1206.04(a)).

When it fits: the name is a real person's (a founder, an owner, a celebrity partner, an influencer) and that person will sign.

What to file: a statement that the name identifies the person, "a living individual whose consent to register is made of record", and a document that person signs consenting "to the registration of my name" (both worded in the letters): one consent per person named, plus proof of authority if someone signs for them.

In their words. STACEY JAMES's final refusal: "the provided consent is a consent to use, rather than the consent to register, the name Stacey and a separate consent to use, rather than register, the name James". The CLARK FOUNDATION's: "The provided consent statement in the applicant's response is not acceptable as it is signed by a Power of Attorney without any further documentation."

The pattern: a consent to register, signed by each person named, ended the letter in every approved file, for a founder and a film star alike. The refused consents were to use rather than register, split between two signers, or signed by an agent with no proof of authority; each was fixed by filing the missing document, not by argument.

3. Show the public would not see a particular person (TMEP 1206.02 and 1206.03)

The rule: consent turns on what the public would understand (TMEP 1206.02, quoted above), and for characters, "The examining attorney should not make an inquiry if it is clear from the record, or from the examining attorney’s research, that the matter identifies a fictitious character" (TMEP 1206.03). The limit: "well-known individuals such as celebrities and world-famous political figures are entitled to the protection of Section 2(c) without having to evidence a connection with the involved goods or services" (TMEP 1206.02).

When it fits: the name is a role you created and control, a coined word or a family word, not a famous person's own name or nickname.

What to file: the facts of where the name comes from: who created it, what it stands for, why no living person stands behind it. Two approved responses below also entered or offered a route 1 or route 2 filing.

In their words. DREW MCINTYRE's response: "Applicant can assign this name to any individual it chooses, at any time." ELON'S MUSK's final refusal: "Thus, the wording would still be seen by consumers as a name." BIG DUMPER's: "the relevant inquiry is whether the applied-for mark identifies a particular living individual to the relevant public, not whether applicant has an alternative personal explanation for its selection".

The pattern: the approved responses explained the name as the applicant's own creation rather than a person: a WWE character, an acronym, a child's word. The refused ones gave a private origin for a name the public already ties to a famous person, and the examiners answered that the public's understanding decides.

Arguments that rarely carried a case alone

Arguing that the question does not apply drew a second letter: B.SHAYE's next letter said "rather than confirming whether the mark identifies a particular living individual, applicant appears to argue that the inquiry is unwarranted. This is not the case." It then filed the named person's consent and registered on October 13, 2026. The character argument did not always stand alone either: when VON WAGNER drew a consent requirement at the statement-of-use stage, WWE made the same argument and, in its response, added: "Notwithstanding, in order to satisfy the requirements and move this application to registration, Applicant is submitting a signed consent as required." It registered on September 22, 2026.

Finding cases like yours

GleanMark's Office Action research (Professional and Max plans) lets you select the "§2(c) Name in Mark" refusal and read files like these, each with its Office action, response and outcome. Choose that filter rather than "§2(c) Living Individual Identification", an older label.

This article describes public USPTO records. It is not legal advice; each letter turns on its own name, goods and evidence.