Protection Of Acronyms Under Trademark Law

Acronyms are defined as the abbreviations of longer words formed by the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase. While the trademark is defined as “A mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others.” From the above definitions, it’s clear that the acronym is registrable under the trademark act but there are certain questions that still require legal dissections like do we automatically get protection over the acronym of the registered name, or do we need to register it separately? It also raises a question like what would happen when registered names are different but their Acronyms are deceptively similar or identical?

trademark law protection


Acronyms are not automatically granted trademark protection. To qualify for Acronym protection, the acronym must be filed in a separate application after the registration of the name. The proposed acronym should not be generic or be recognized by customers as being synonymous with a particular product. It needs to have a definition distinct from the generic descriptive terms. If that condition is met, the trademark law can recognize the Acronyms or short forms of the registered names as valid trademarks. For a better understanding of this concept, We can assume a scenario where an organization named “ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM” wants to protect the short form of its name “AILF” under the trademark law, however, the other organization named with “ALL INDIA LAWYERS FORUM” filed an opposition against the claim of “ALL INDIA LEGAL FORUM” and filed a separate claim over the protection of “AILF”. Here the questions arise, who has valid claims over the protection and whether the term “AILF” is generic or unique in nature?

Since it is clear that the registration of name does not include registration of its Acronyms. The board in the given scenario has to look upon whether the Acronyms are registered or not. If there’s no registration of the acronym then granting protection to the organization with the prior registration of the original name could be a possible approach. However, in some circumstances, an unregistered trademark holder can also get protection in the form of passing off, if the holder establishes that the unregistered mark has comparable goodwill or reputation in connection with the product.

When an acronym is registered as a trademark, the rights holder may initiate litigation against the use of the identical or similar acronym. However, in such cases similarities in the appearance, sound, or meaning are examined.

If two Acronyms are similar and are meant for the same thing, legal action can be initiated however, when the Acronyms vary even in one letter, then the overall perception will decide whether an action is possible or not. Let’s take the example of TVS and TVF. Are TVs and TVF unique because only one letter is different or these are similar? In the given example, The first two letters are the same but the last letter i.e S and T looks and sounds very different. Hence on balance, we can say these Acronyms are not similar. In contrast, TVF and EVF are very similar to each other because they differ only by one letter and sound very similar to those two letters. Therefore, we can say one letter can make a huge difference.

In the case of Superon Schweisstechnik India v. Modi Hitech India Ltd, the Delhi High Court ruled on the issue of abbreviations of words being used as trademarks where the complainant named Superon Schweisstechnik India, operated an enterprise for the repair of welding electrodes and used the term “SUPERON” as a trademark. Along with SUPERON, the company also used the term “VAC PAC” for electrodes that are vacuum packaged. The defendant named Modi Hitech India Ltd., who used the trademark GMM/arc for its products also uses “VAC PAC” for vacuum packaged electrodes.

The complainant argued that “VAC PAC” is a word invented by it, and the word acquired a secondary meaning with its widespread usage and time period suggesting that the goods containing the term belonged to his company.

Nevertheless, the court rejected the claims of the complainant and ruled that both parties have substantially different primary trademarks (SUPERON, GMM / arc, respectively). The court further observed that “the scope of protection for descriptive words—and in particular, abbreviations as trademarks—was extremely limited, persons using descriptive trademarks that are merely common words in the English language and who choose to juxtapose such words to make them look like creations should be discouraged“. As in the present case, the term ‘VAC PAC’ merely implies the product type, i.e., ‘packaged vacuum,’ which was crucial in order to support a long life of welding electrodes.


In Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc., The examiner held that the acronym defines only the feature, function, or intent of the services of the applicant is not entitled to be protected under trademark law. A mark consisting of an acronym will be considered substantially synonymous with descriptive wording if:

  • The mark proposed is an abbreviation or acronym for specific wording
  • The specific wording is merely descriptive of the services of the applicant; and
  • A relevant consumer recognizes it as being an equivalent of merely descriptive wording when viewing the acronym with respect to the services of the applicant.

Therefore from the above discussion, it is clear that the acronym needs to be suggestive rather than merely descriptive for trademark protection.


In light of the above discussion, we can say that the protection of Acronyms under the trademark law is not properly defined and is a little bit ambiguous in nature. An acronym may be able to get protection under trademark if its original phrase eligible for trademark protection (LG for Lifes Good). But if the acronym is the shorter version of a generic or descriptive term, then it will not be able to get protection under present trademark laws.

Since the trademark role in marketing is now at its peak, the scope of protection of Acronyms is needed to be tapped in order to cope up with the current realities as It allows consumers to know the brand in an easier way. Therefore, the need of the hour is to come up with balanced laws that provide a broader scope for the protection of Acronyms along with maintaining their viability in the current scenario.

Author: Shubhank Suman, a 5th-year B.B.A. L.L.B. student of National Law University Odisha, an intern and Aishani Singh, Litigation Associate at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

4 + seven =


  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010