Lake America, Meet the Lanham Act

Find the January 2025 executive order here and the August 27 executive order here.

Other countries are not obligated to adopt the new name, and some may choose not to do so. What about businesses and brands built around these names? Geography has always been a tricky space for trademark law and when official geographic names change, it gets trickier. Renamings like this create a ripple effect across trademark portfolios that most businesses are not prepared for — companies may have spent years building equity related to the historic names but within weeks of the first executive order, more than a dozen new “Gulf of America” trademark applications were already filed with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), covering everything from commemorative coins to oil rigging equipment. 

What Actually Happened

The authority to rename geographic features at the federal level is exercised through the Secretary of the Interior and the US Board on Geographic Names, a body created in 1890 and later codified by US Congress. When the federal government officially changes a geographic name, that decision must be used across all federal agencies and publications, including federal maps, databases, and government documents. However, a federal name change does not automatically bind state governments, private organizations, or other countries. For example, Canada would have no obligation to adopt a new name for Lake Ontario, and New York State could continue using the existing name unless Congress enacted legislation requiring otherwise.

The executive order directs the Department of the Interior to update the federal Geographic Names Information System within 30 days. Meanwhile, the US House of Representatives has already passed legislation to make the Gulf of America renaming permanent in federal law, and similar attention is expected to follow with respect to the proposed Lake America renaming.

What the Name Changes Mean for Businesses With References to the Old Names

Trademark rights in the United States arise from use in commerce, and a presidential renaming does not invalidate or cancel existing trademark registrations or common law rights. Owners of trademark registrations incorporating “Gulf of Mexico” or “Lake Ontario” remain valid along with persisting common law rights. There is no statutory mechanism that automatically cancels a trademark upon a geographic renaming.

Could the renaming make marks with the old name stronger? Under the Lanham Act, geographic terms face heightened scrutiny. Marks that are “primarily geographically descriptive” under § 2(e)(2) are harder to register and protect. But if the original name fades from public recognition as a geographic identifier, because the government and media consistently use the new name, the old-name mark may shift from “descriptive” toward “suggestive” or even “arbitrary” on the distinctiveness spectrum, which could be a significant upgrade in trademark strength.

Conversely, applicants who previously had “Gulf of Mexico” marks refused as merely descriptive may now have a basis for seeking to have those refusals withdrawn if they can show the Gulf of Mexico is no longer a recognized geographic location in the eyes of the relevant consuming public.

What the Name Changes Mean for Businesses Incorporating the New Names

Trademarks fall on a distinctiveness spectrum and must be either inherently distinctive or capable of acquiring distinctiveness. At one end are completely made-up names like Kodak. At the other are generic terms that anyone can use. Where a name falls on that spectrum often determines whether it can be registered as a trademark and how strong the owner’s rights will be.

For products or services that actually come from the region, names like “Gulf of America” or “Lake America” would likely be viewed as geographic descriptions. In other words, they tell consumers where the goods or services come from, much like “Napa Valley” for wine or “Florida” for oranges. The USPTO would likely ask whether consumers would see the name primarily as a place and assume the product has a connection to that place.

Things get more interesting when the product has nothing to do with the region. If a company used “Lake America” for software, for example, consumers might see it as a brand name rather than a geographic reference. The key question would be whether people would think the software has some connection to the lake or the surrounding area.

The unusual thing here is that these are newly created geographic names. They are not made-up words with no meaning, given that the government has designated them as place names. However, they are also not like long-established geographic names that everyone immediately recognizes. Because public awareness is still developing, there may be some uncertainty about how the USPTO will treat them at first, but over time, as more people come to recognize the names as geographic locations, it will become harder to argue that they function as distinctive trademarks rather than simply describing a place. This is where it will be key for businesses to document their advertising spend, media coverage, consumer surveys, sales data, and anything else to build a repository of evidence, in case the USPTO raises objections and states that it does not function as a trademark. The trademark owner will be glad to have built the evidence file from day one so they can submit a § 2(f) claim, which allows registration of a descriptive mark upon proof of acquired distinctiveness.

What to Do Now

For businesses currently using the original names:

• Maintain any trademark registrations. No immediate action is required. File your § 8 and § 9 maintenance declarations on schedule. Your rights are intact.

• Monitor consumer perception. Over time, assess whether the original name is losing geographic significance. If it is, your mark’s distinctiveness may actually increase.

• Evaluate new filings. If the original name is no longer treated as primarily geographic by the USPTO, applications that would have been refused in the past may now be viable.

For businesses seeking to capitalize on the new name:

• File early, but strategically. Intent-to-use applications can establish a priority date, but a geographic descriptiveness refusal is likely. Pair the new name with distinctive elements to improve registrability. 

• Run comprehensive clearance searches. Pre-existing rights in “Gulf of America” and, likely soon, “Lake America” may mean you could be walking into a conflict. Search before filing or launching.

• Build your secondary meaning record from day one. Document everything: advertising spend, media coverage, consumer surveys, and sales data. Preserve the evidence for your § 2(f) claim.

International non-recognition creates other practical complications. Some countries, such as Canada, have indicated they will not adopt the new name, Lake America. If your business operates across borders, consider a dual-naming strategy, or shift branding to elements not tied to any geographic name.

Geographic renamings are rare, but when they happen, the trademark implications can be significant. Whether you are protecting existing brands or exploring new opportunities, early and informed action is key.