Not All Trademarks Are Created Equal

One of the biggest misconceptions I see among business owners is the belief that a catchy brand name automatically makes for a strong trademark.

It doesn’t.

In Canadian trademark law, the strength of a trademark depends largely on one thing:

Distinctiveness.

 In other words, how uniquely your name identifies you as the source of your products or services.

And not all trademarks sit at the same level on that spectrum.

At the weakest end are generic terms: words that simply name the product or service itself. These can never function as trademarks because no one business can claim exclusive rights over common industry language. A yoga studio, for example, cannot monopolize the words “Yoga Studio” for yoga studio services.

Next are descriptive marks, which directly describe a feature, quality, location, or characteristic of the business. Names like “Toronto Lash Extensions” may sound practical from a marketing perspective, but legally they can be difficult to register and even harder to enforce. In Canada, descriptive marks are often refused unless the owner can prove the name has acquired distinctiveness through extensive use and consumer recognition over time.

Moving further up the spectrum are suggestive trademarks. These are often considered the sweet spot: they hint at the nature of the goods or services without directly describing them. A suggestive mark requires a small mental leap from the consumer, which is exactly what gives it stronger legal protection. Brands like “SkipTheDishes” work because they evoke the service without literally describing every aspect of it.

Stronger still are arbitrary trademarks. These are real words used in a completely unrelated context. “Apple” for computers is the classic example. The word itself has nothing to do with technology, which makes it highly distinctive and legally powerful.

At the strongest end of the spectrum are fanciful trademarks: completely invented words created solely to function as brands. Think “Spotify” or “Kodak.” Because these names have no pre-existing meaning, they are inherently distinctive and generally receive the broadest scope of protection.

The important takeaway here is this: the more your trademark directly describes what you do, the weaker it tends to be from a legal standpoint.

That can feel counterintuitive, especially in an online business world obsessed with clarity, keywords, and SEO. But trademark law is not designed to reward descriptiveness. It is designed to protect brand identifiers that distinguish one business from another.

So while a name that instantly explains your services may feel like a smart marketing move, it may also leave you with limited trademark rights and a much harder time stopping competitors from using similar branding.

A strong trademark doesn’t just sound good. It creates distinction that is worth protecting.