Here's an updated, lengthy list of Section 2(e)(2)
geographical descriptiveness cases. These are much more common than
Section 2(e)(3) refusals, perhaps because the former is more easily
established since it is not necessary to prove the materiality of
the misrepresentation. The great majority of the decisions are not
precedential, but even non-precedential decisions may be helpful in
framing effective arguments and locating precedential support for
them.
For a mark to be deemed primarily geographically descriptive
under Section 2(e)(2), it must be shown that (1) the mark's
primary significance is a generally known geographic location; (2)
the relevant public would be likely to make a goods/place
association, that is, would be likely to believe that the goods
originate in the place named in the mark; and (3) the goods do
originate in that place. When the goods do come from the location
named, then a goods/place association may be presumed.
