Octomom Nadya Suleman Files Trademark Applications

I can honestly say that I never thought I would have any reason to write about Nadya Suleman, the so-called Octomom, but it appears as this omnipresent, attention-seeking mother of 14 children is aggressively seeking to cash in on giving birth to 8 children just a few months ago.  In order to take full advantage of this situation Suleman has filed two trademark applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  Both applications were filed less than one week ago, on April 10, 2009.  The first application, Serial Number 77711827, is for a standard character mark on “Octomom,” which would relate to the entertainment industry and particularly to an on-going, variety television program.  The second application, Serial Number 77711852, is also for a standard character mark on “Octomom,” and relates to dresses, pants, shirts and diapers.  So be on the lookout for Octomom clothing to come to a store near you!

For those of you who do not know who the Octomom is, my question to you is what rock have you been living under?  Nadya Suleman is all over the place, on TV, in newspapers and magazines and talked about on the radio.  But on the off chance that someone is wondering what this is all about, if you take a few minutes to watch the YouTube clip below, which discusses the situation and her mental health status, you will be all caught up and better able to carry on poinyent water-cooler conversations in virtually any setting.

Trademarks are often classified in categories of generally increasing distinctiveness, namely a trademark can be considered to be (1) generic; (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) fanciful. The latter three categories of trademarks are deemed inherently distinctive and are entitled to trademark protection because their intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source of a product or service.  In contrast, generic marks cannot be protected because they relate only to a category or classification, such as the term “food.”  Similarly, trademarks that are merely descriptive of a product are not inherently distinctive and hence cannot be protected. However, descriptive marks may acquire the distinctiveness necessary to allow them to be protected. The Trademark Laws in the United States explain that a descriptive mark that otherwise could not be registered may be registered if it has become sufficiently distinctive. This acquired distinctiveness is generally called secondary meaning. So it is said in the industry that when a descriptive trademark has acquired secondary meaning it may then be protected.

Descriptive marks provide less trademark protection because if a term is descriptive it can be used by anyone else selling the same goods or providing the same services. For example, you could not register as a trademark “Gas Station” to be used as a trademark associated with an automobile service station.  Notwithstanding, a trademark that is descriptive in one context may well not be descriptive in another context.  For example, if you wanted to register “Gas Station” as a trademark for a restaurant that would sell hot dogs and baked beans, you probably could do so because in that context the term “Gas Station” is not descriptive, but would likely be considered suggestive.  It would be suggestive because hot dogs and baked beans can and frequently do give you gas.

So what does this have to do with Nadya Suleman?  Well, she is a mother who gave birth to 8 children at the same time.  This means she is the mother of octuplets, which further means that the term “Octomom” could be considered descriptive with respect to her.  Alternatively, it could be suggestive.  I would say that the term “Octomom” as applied to Suleman is probably on the boundary between descriptive and suggestive, some thinking it is one, others thinking it is the other.  If it is descriptive she would have to argue it has attained secondary meaning, which it probably has given that if you say “Octomom” everyone is going to likely think of Suleman.

The important thing to notice here is that the next person who gives birth to 8 children will again be the mother of octuplets, and may want to refer to herself as an “Octomom.”  This is a dangerous situation for an owner of a trademark.  If and when the trademark becomes used to describe a thing then the trademark loses any legal rights.  This has famously happened to “trampoline”, “aspirin” and “escalator” to name but a few trademarks lost because the trademark name became synonymous with the thing it was supposed to represent.

I am admittedly making something out of nothing here, to some extent at least, because the trademark applications filed are not seeking to attach the “Octomom” label to Suleman, but rather seeking to attach it to a line of clothing and to a television program.  Perhaps this was by design and with full knowledge that trying to trademark “Octomom” as representative of Suleman personally could be problematic.  The bigger problem, however, for Suleman may be that others will try and capitalize on the Octo-crazy.  At least one other applicant has filed for trademark protection for the term “Octomom.”  Super Happy Fun Fun, Inc. filed for trademark protection on March 12, 2009 (Serial Number 77689864) for products relating to computer games, toys, action figures, puzzles and more!  So be on the lookout for “Octomom” games and more at a toy store near you!


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Join the Discussion

7 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for barbara]
    April 28, 2009 03:36 am

    This woman just makes me SICK!!!!

  • [Avatar for Tunde]
    April 22, 2009 12:41 pm

    I’d argue it can’t be “merely descriptive” a) when it’s a coined word and b) when it’s considered in relation to the goods and services in the applications. What the heck does ‘octomom’ mean anyway? Maybe it’s a mom with octuplets, maybe it’s a cheeky reference to a mom who needs 8 arms (don’t we all), maybe a mom who likes octopus. My vote would be suggestive, yes, descriptive no. As to the confusion question, I’ll be interested to see what happens too!

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    April 18, 2009 05:10 pm


    Are there really others who are using the name as a trademark, or are they just using it to refer to her? If they are using OCTOMOM to refer to Suleman doesn’t that help her? With FEDEX, everyone was referring to sending something overnight as “fedex-ing” or referring to overnight mail as “just send it FEDEX at the post office.” The Federal Express change seemed at the time to make sure the term “fedex” didn’t become synonymous with overnight mail, as the term “xerox” had started to become with respect to making photocopies.


  • [Avatar for Mike]
    April 17, 2009 08:20 am


    The big difference here is none of the competitors were using the name “FEDEX.” I am sure in this case someone like Perez Hilton will provide a previous user of the term “OCTOMOM” in the entertainment industry. She may be able to get the clothing mark though.


  • [Avatar for Mark Malek]
    Mark Malek
    April 17, 2009 08:15 am

    With respect to Laura’s comment, it would be interesting to see if an opposition is filed by someone who may be considered a senior user. The term was coined by others, and due to its popularity, someone may already be using the mark on similar goods and/or services.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    April 16, 2009 03:45 pm


    Can you elaborate a bit? How would this differ from what FedEx did when they changed from Federal Express. Remember the advertising campaign about 12 or 14 years ago now? They said something like… “OK… we get it… everyone calls us FedEx… so we are going to change our name…”


  • [Avatar for Laura]
    April 16, 2009 02:26 pm

    I think the issue is not desriptiveness but whether she has the exclusive right (even irrespective of Super Happy Fun Fun) when the media created the term and applied it to her, rather than her coining the term.