Mary LaFrance


This article compares the approaches which different federal courts have adopted to address the distinctiveness of abbreviations where the underlying expression or information conveyed by the abbreviation is unprotectable either because it is generic or because it is descriptive and lacks secondary meaning. While this study is not intended as a comprehensive survey, it is designed to highlight the inconsistencies in approaches. The article concludes with some observations about the patterns and trends emerging from the unsettled decisional law.