Imagine having to decide —without consulting the manual— which of the following three signs would pass the registration filter with the fewest objections: (i) “Pan del Valle” for a bakery; (ii) a logo incorporating a State flag; (iii) “QUIMERA” for software. If you thought of the third, you’ve already sensed the logic of the system: registrability does not reward what is most descriptive or most eye-catching, but rather what distinguishes business origin without invading protected spheres. Based on that guiding principle, it’s important to clarify what cannot be registered—either due to the intrinsic nature of the sign (absolute grounds for refusal) or because of conflicts with prior rights (relative grounds for refusal).
Absolute grounds relate to the nature of the sign itself, regardless of who applies. The first hurdle is lack of distinctiveness: generic or merely descriptive terms for the product or service —such as “Bread” for a bakery, “Fast” for a courier service, or “100% cotton” for garments— do not serve a trademark function and must remain available to all. Also excluded are commonly used or technical expressions that the market needs to remain free, deceptive signs that could mislead about the nature, quality, or origin of the goods, and signs that are contrary to morality or public order. A particularly sensitive category includes officially protected symbols (flags, coats of arms, emblems of States or international organizations, certain religious signs), whose use is either prohibited or strictly regulated. In the realm of three-dimensional marks, shapes dictated by the nature of the product or that provide a technical advantage are not registrable: trademark law does not grant monopolies over functional solutions. While some jurisdictions allow non-traditional signs—such as colors, sounds, or motion—registration requires proof that the public recognizes them on their own as indicators of origin, a burden that is often difficult to meet in practice.
Relative grounds apply when the proposed sign conflicts with earlier rights and creates a likelihood of confusion or unfair advantage from another’s reputation. The comparison goes beyond literal identity: phonetic, graphic, and conceptual similarities are considered, including translations and transliterations that the average consumer may perceive as equivalent, along with the similarity of the goods or services. Registration is also barred when the sign conflicts with trade names, slogans, company names, geographical indications, and other protected designations, as well as the name, signature, pseudonym, likeness, or voice of an individual without consent. In many Central American and European jurisdictions, well-known or famous marks enjoy extended protection against applications that could dilute their distinctiveness or take advantage of their reputation—even outside their original sector.
Comparative experience shows that many refusals can be avoided through well-informed early decisions. Designing fanciful, arbitrary, or suggestive names instead of obvious descriptions increases the chance of success from the outset. A prior rights search that goes beyond exact matches—covering phonetic and visual variations, synonyms, brand families, and translations in the relevant jurisdictions—reduces risks and costs. When a sign sits in a gray area, it’s advisable to document use to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness through sales, advertising, media coverage, and, where applicable, consumer recognition studies. A precise definition of scope (Nice classes and a product/service list aligned with commercial strategy) prevents unnecessary clashes and builds a coverage that is both useful and effective—especially in portfolios spanning Central America and Europe.
In short, the “registrability puzzle” is solved by fitting two key pieces together: inherent distinctiveness and absence of conflict. Respecting these boundaries is not a bureaucratic formality, but a prerequisite for ensuring consumer clarity, fair competition, and stronger, more transferable trademark assets over time. If you’re considering filing a new trademark or reorganizing your portfolio across jurisdictions, our team can support you from the creative phase through to the coordinated management of applications, with tailored searches, risk analyses, and evidentiary support. This text is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; each case requires a specific assessment of the applicable framework and available evidence.
