GIRLBOSS’s attorney raises some interesting points to overcome USPTO’s initial “ ” refusal:
- the owner, Sophia Amaruso, already owns several trademarks for the term; and
- she coined the phrase (unlike “I’m kind of a big deal” which was already in widespread use before the movie).
Still, I saw GIRLBOSS all over the marketplace before I’d ever heard of the applicant, and doubt consumers seeing it on a shirt or wall poster think they are buying from her.
From a “freedom in the marketplace” standpoint, it seems like it should be available for those who just want to identify themselves as a “girlboss” whether or not they endorse her per se.
Besides, having it spread wider in the novelty marketplace can make her other businesses stronger through increasing brand name recognition (see Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference).
Makers can learn a lesson from this saga: beware of building a brand on an inspiring message alone. Suppose the mark was instead “Girlboss by Sophia Amaruso”? Buyers who want to be part of what she’s doing would gladly pay to do so. And others who simply identify with the feminist rally cry that “girlboss” embodies could still find a gazillion novelty products to express their enthusiasm for the message.
What do you think? (I don’t use it on any of my products, BTW. Just an interested bystander.)
I’m curious how USPTO will rule on this.