Trademark Win! NAKED ZERO

Mark: NAKED ZERO

Goods/Services: Matcha; Tea; Green tea; Tea-based beverages; Mixes in the nature of concentrates, syrups, or powders used in the preparation of tea-based beverages (Class 030)

Refusal Grounds: Likelihood of confusion (Section 2(d)) with NAKED MATCHA, NAKED GREEN, and NAKED TEAS; Requirement for disclaimer of “ZERO”

When we filed the trademark application for NAKED ZERO for tea and related beverage products, the USPTO initially refused registration. The Examining Attorney argued there was a likelihood of confusion with the existing registrations NAKED MATCHA, NAKED GREEN, and NAKED TEAS, all covering tea products. In addition, the Office required a disclaimer of “ZERO,” claiming it described a feature of the goods, such as having no calories or sugar.

Our response dismantled both points. First, we demonstrated that “NAKED” is highly diluted in the beverage industry, supported by dozens of coexisting third-party uses and registrations. We invoked the anti-dissection rule, explaining that the USPTO must evaluate the mark as a whole, not isolate the shared term. The addition of “ZERO” altered the appearance, sound, and meaning enough to create a separate and distinctive commercial impression. As for the disclaimer, we showed that “ZERO” was not being used descriptively for nutritional content but as part of a unique brand name.

The USPTO agreed, withdrawing the refusal and the disclaimer requirement. NAKED ZERO is now registered—proof that even when a mark shares a common industry term, strategic arguments and solid evidence can win the day.