Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 20

2  PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. BOOKING.COM B. V. 

BREYER, J., dissenting 

distinctive to serve as a trademark, courts generally place
it in one of five categories.  The first four kinds of terms are 
eligible for federal trademark registration.  The fifth is not. 
I list the first three only to give context and allow com-
parisons.  They are: (1) “ ‘fanciful’ ” terms, such as “Kodak” 
(film); (2) “ ‘arbitrary’ ” terms, such as “Camel” (cigarettes);
and (3) “ ‘suggestive’ ” terms, such as “Tide” (laundry deter-
gent).  Ante,  at  3.  These  kinds  of  terms  are  “ ‘inherently
distinctive.’ ”  Ibid.  The public can readily understand that
they  identify  and  distinguish  the  goods  or  services  of  one
firm from those of all others.  See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco 
Cabana, Inc., 505 U. S. 763, 768 (1992).  By preventing oth-
ers  from  copying  a  distinctive  mark,  trademark  law  “pro-
tect[s] the ability of consumers to distinguish among com-
peting producers” and “secure[s] to the owner of the mark 
the  goodwill  of  his  business.”  Park  ’N  Fly,  Inc.  v.  Dollar 
Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198 (1985).  Ultimately, the
purpose  of  trademark  law  is  to  “foster  competition”  and 
“suppor[t]  the  free  flow  of  commerce.”    Matal,  582  U. S., 
at ___ (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

This case concerns two further categories.  There are “de-
scriptive” terms, such as “Best Buy” (electronics) or “First
National  Bank”  (banking  services),  that  “immediately 
conve[y] information concerning a feature, quality, or char-
acteristic” of the producer’s goods or services.  In re North 
Carolina Lottery, 866 F. 3d 1363, 1367 (CA Fed. 2017).  A 
descriptive term can be registered as a trademark only if it
acquires “secondary meaning”—i.e., the public has come to
associate it with a particular firm or its product.  Two Pesos, 
505 U. S., at 769. 

There are also “generic” terms, such as “wine” or “hair-
cuts.”  They do nothing more than inform the consumer of 
the kind of product that the firm sells.  We have called ge-
neric terms “descriptive of a class of goods.”  Goodyear’s In-
dia  Rubber  Glove  Mfg.  Co.  v.  Goodyear  Rubber  Co.,  128 
U. S. 598, 602 (1888).  And we have said that they simply