Foreign Equivalents and Indigenous Languages in U.S. Trademark Law
Why Wawa's "Wild Goose" Roots May Not Matter to Trademark Law—But Should
When Wawa convenience stores opened several new locations in my city, I couldn't help but shift into trademark lawyer mode, especially after discovering that the name "Wawa" has Native American linguistic origins.
The brand name "Wawa" traces back to a Native American word meaning "wild goose." The town of Wawa, Pennsylvania, from which the company takes its name, is believed to derive from either the Lenape word for "wild goose" or the Ojibwe term for "snow goose." This detail places Wawa's trademark in interesting legal territory.
The Wawa trademark raises a key question under U.S. trademark law: Could the USPTO's doctrine of foreign equivalents apply to brand names derived from indigenous languages like Lenape or Ojibwe? And more specifically, could this doctrine impact Wawa's trademark rights in ways not immediately obvious?
Understanding the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents
The doctrine of foreign equivalents is a foundational principle in U.S. trademark law. It's designed to prevent consumer confusion between trademarks that appear in different languages but convey the same meaning. According to Section 1207.01(b)(vi) of the United States Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP)—the USPTO's official guidance for trademark examiners— the doctrine applies when all three of the following conditions are met:
- The foreign word comes from a language familiar to an appreciable segment of American consumers.
- The foreign word and its English equivalent are substantially similar in meaning.
- The goods or services associated with the marks are related enough to create a likelihood of confusion.
Common Foreign Language Equivalents—and Why They Matter
Several decisions by the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) illustrate how the doctrine of foreign equivalents is applied in real-world trademark disputes:
- Buenos Dias vs. Good Morning: These marks create identical commercial impressions for Spanish-speaking consumers, increasing the likelihood of confusion over sponsorship or source.
- El Sol vs. Sun: With equivalent meaning and widespread familiarity, this pairing may confuse consumers in the marketplace.
- Casa vs. House: A direct translation that bilingual consumers would immediately recognize as synonymous—creating clear overlap in perception.
The USPTO most frequently invokes the doctrine of foreign equivalents in trademark disputes involving widely spoken languages—particularly Spanish, French, German, Chinese, and Japanese. These languages are considered sufficiently familiar to large segments of the U.S. population to trigger the doctrine's application.
Wawa's Trademark History: Inconsistent Translation Disclosures
Wawa's own treatment of its brand's Native American linguistic origin has shifted over time, with varying degrees of transparency in its federal trademark filings:
- 1969: Described "Wawa" simply as "an American Indian word."
- 2015: Explicitly acknowledged that "Wawa" translates to "wild goose" in the Lenni-Lenape language.
- 2024: Filed a new design mark application
for
, with no reference to its
linguistic origin or a translation.
The Strategic Implications of Wawa's Trademark Disclosures
This inconsistency raises strategic questions. Was the absence of a translation in the 2024 Wawa trademark application a deliberate effort to avoid scrutiny under the doctrine of foreign equivalents? Or was it a procedural oversight during the application process?
Either way, the lack of consistency could have implications in future trademark challenges, particularly if linguistic origin becomes relevant in opposition or cancellation proceedings.
Why the USPTO Didn't Require a Translation
Why didn't the USPTO flag Wawa's 2024 filing for failure to include a translation of the word "Wawa"? The likely answer lies in a combination of well-established examination principles and practical realities:
The Obscure Language Exception
According to TMEP §809.01(a)(ii), it is "generally not necessary to translate words from dead or obscure languages." With fewer than 200 fluent Lenape speakers—many of whom live outside the United States—the language likely falls below the threshold of familiarity required to trigger translation under USPTO rules.
Geographic Significance Override
Trademark examiners often treat terms like "Wawa" as geographic references—particularly when derived from U.S. place names. This approach mirrors how the USPTO handles other locations with Native American names, such as Chicago or Kalamazoo. In these cases, the geographic origin typically overrides any linguistic significance for examination purposes.
Examiner Knowledge Limitations
The examining attorney may simply have been unaware of the term's Native American roots. Although USPTO examiners rely on robust databases and internal search tools, they are not required to possess encyclopedic knowledge of indigenous languages—especially those considered obscure or endangered.
Could Wawa Block a "Wild Goose" Trademark?
Could Wawa's existing trademark registrations prevent someone from registering a mark like Wild Goose or Snow Goose?
Almost certainly not. The doctrine of foreign equivalents wouldn't apply here, for several reasons:
Language Familiarity Requirements Not Met
The doctrine of foreign equivalents only applies when the foreign term originates from a language familiar to an appreciable segment of American consumers. Lenape and Ojibwe—though culturally significant—are not widely spoken in the United States today. With very few fluent speakers and limited public familiarity, these languages fall outside the scope of the doctrine as interpreted by the USPTO and the TTAB.
Wawa's Historical Enforcement Strategy
A review of Wawa's trademark opposition history shows that the company primarily targets marks that are phonetically or visually similar to "Wawa." There's no pattern of opposing marks that are conceptually or linguistically related. In fact, Wawa has not acted against any trademarks referencing geese or goose-related terminology.
So, while Wawa is an active enforcer of its brand, it appears unlikely that a "Wild Goose" mark would ruffle its feathers.
Market Context Analysis
Even if a third party filed for a Wild Goose trademark, the USPTO's likelihood of confusion analysis would take several additional factors into account—such as the industry, class of goods or services, channels of trade, and consumer sophistication. Unless the applied-for mark overlaps significantly with Wawa's business scope or branding, a successful opposition would be unlikely.
Indigenous Languages and Trademark Law: A Larger Blind Spot
Wawa's trademark filings offer a telling example of how U.S. trademark law has historically treated indigenous languages—and where the system may still be falling short. Beyond this single case, the implications for brands and legal practitioners are significant.
Cultural Sensitivity and Brand Authenticity
While there is no legal obligation to disclose the cultural or linguistic origins of a brand name, doing so can signal respect and cultural awareness. For brands with indigenous language roots, thoughtful acknowledgment may enhance both authenticity and consumer trust—especially in an era of increasing scrutiny over cultural appropriation.
Legal Consistency and Trademark Strategy
Inconsistent translation disclosures across trademark filings can create ambiguity. Disparities in how language origins are disclosed—or not—may lead to confusion during examination and could impact how future examiners or third-party challengers interpret the mark's scope or validity. Over time, such inconsistencies may weaken a brand's overall IP posture.
Language Preservation and Doctrinal Blind Spots
Classifying indigenous languages as "obscure" within the trademark system may be procedurally convenient, but it also raises difficult questions. What role should trademark law play in acknowledging or preserving linguistic heritage? And how might the legal categorization of indigenous languages—as too unfamiliar to matter—contribute, however unintentionally, to broader cultural erasure?
Best Practices for Registering Indigenous or Minority Language Brand Names
For companies and individuals seeking to register trademarks that incorporate indigenous or minority language terms, it's important to approach the process with a thoughtful blend of legal strategy, linguistic accuracy, and cultural awareness. The following best practices can help reduce legal risk and build stronger, more respectful brand identities:
- Research linguistic origins thoroughly
Don't rely solely on assumptions or surface-level meanings. Investigate the word's etymology, historical usage, and cultural significance—especially if the term comes from a language not widely spoken in the U.S. - Be consistent in translation disclosures
If you choose to disclose the meaning or origin of a term in one trademark application, consider doing so consistently across related filings. Inconsistencies can raise red flags or complicate enforcement down the road. - Document your rationale for disclosure
decisions
Whether you opt to include or omit a translation, keep a clear internal record explaining the decision. This can be valuable if the application is challenged or if the USPTO later requests clarification. - Respect cultural context, not just legal
checkboxes
Even if the USPTO doesn't require a translation or cultural explanation, acknowledging the significance of the term can enhance brand credibility and reduce reputational risk—especially with communities connected to the language. - Monitor the trademark landscape
Keep an eye on how similar linguistic elements are being used—or challenged—by other applicants. Trends in examiner treatment or third-party opposition can help shape smarter filing strategies.
Strategic Trademark Takeaways
Wawa's case underscores a growing tension in trademark law—where legal doctrine intersects with cultural identity.
- The doctrine of foreign equivalents remains a powerful tool for evaluating marks in widely spoken languages—but its application becomes murky when it comes to underrepresented or endangered languages.
- The USPTO's reliance on examiner discretion and the "obscure language" exception creates inconsistencies in how Native American languages and other minority languages are treated.
- For brand owners, this presents both a risk and an opportunity. And for legal practitioners, it reinforces the importance of thoughtful, culturally informed strategy.
Trademarks aren't just legal designations—they can be cultural signals. In cases like this, what the law doesn't require may still matter. If you need guidance on protecting culturally significant or linguistically complex trademarks, our experienced trademark team can help. We provide strategic counsel on U.S. and international trademark prosecution, enforcement, and brand development.
United States Trademarks: Foreign Equivalents And Indigenous Languages
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
