The "Mebounds" Dilemma: Can Public Criticism Become a Registrable Trademark?
Does Angel Reese own the word "MEBOUNDS" now?
A recent situation involving WNBA star Angel Reese has brought a fascinating intellectual property question to the forefront, touching on celebrity branding, fan culture, and the limits of trademark law. Reese has been associated with an effort to seek federal trademark registration for the term "MEBOUNDS," complete with a ™ symbol appearing on apparel she is selling.
The term, a portmanteau of "me" and "rebounds," did not originate from the athlete's marketing team. Instead, it was coined by WNBA fans and commentators to describe a perceived tendency to miss close-range shots, thereby creating opportunities for her own rebounds.
The attempt to register "Mebounds" at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) appears to be a strategic move to control a narrative, potentially neutralizing a term of criticism by co-opting it for commercial purposes. Some fans have praised this move as a way to profit off of “haters” or otherwise disrupt perceived cyberbullying.
This raises a significant question for IP practitioners, brand owners, and the public: What recourse do third parties have when an individual or company attempts to trademark a term that arose organically from public commentary, especially when that commentary is critical?
Potential Hurdles for the "Mebounds" Application
For a word to be registered as a trademark, it must function as a source identifier, distinguishing the applicant's goods or services from those of others. Applying for trademark registration is no guarantee for registration on the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register.
The “TM” symbol has no bearing on whether the USPTO has allowed the application. By selling goods and using the “TM,” Reese may establish some common law and/or state rights to the mark.
The "Mebounds" application faces several potential challenges on this front at the Office, providing avenues for opposition.
A primary argument against registration is that the term is merely descriptive. Trademark law is skeptical of granting exclusive rights to words that describe a characteristic, quality, or feature of the goods or services.
In this case, opponents could argue that "Mebounds" directly describes a perceived attribute of Ms. Reese's basketball performance. If the USPTO examining attorney agrees, the application could be refused on the grounds of descriptiveness under Section 2(e)(1) of the Lanham Act.
Furthermore, a term must be used as a mark. If the public primarily perceives "Mebounds" as a piece of slang or critical commentary rather than as a brand name for merchandise, it fails to function as a trademark.
Widespread use of the term by fans and media in a non-commercial, descriptive sense could be powerful evidence against registration.
Avenues for Public Intervention at the USPTO
Individuals or groups who believe a trademark application should be refused have specific mechanisms to voice their concerns to the USPTO.
For WNBA fans or others wishing to prevent the registration of "Mebounds," two primary options exist.
1. Letter of Protest
Before a trademark application is approved for publication, third parties can file a Letter of Protest. This is an informal procedure that allows an individual to submit evidence to the USPTO that they believe is relevant to the examining attorney's review of the application. The goal is to provide the examiner with information that he or she might not have found independently.
For the "Mebounds" application, a Letter of Protest could include evidence demonstrating:
Prior Use by the Public: Compiling screenshots from social media platforms (like X or Reddit), online forums, and articles that show the term "Mebounds" being used by the public before the applicant's claimed date of first use. Dated evidence is particularly effective.
Descriptive Nature: Submitting examples of the term being used specifically to describe the act of a player securing their own rebound after a missed shot. This reinforces the argument that the term is descriptive and not a unique source identifier.
Widespread Third-Party Use: Evidence showing that the term is used by a wide variety of people and media outlets, which would suggest it is a common slang term rather than a distinctive brand.
The Director of the USPTO has discretion whether to accept the protest and forward the evidence to the examiner. Protests must be limited to factual, objective evidence.
2. Notice of Opposition
If the examining attorney approves the mark and it is published for opposition in the Official Gazette, a more formal proceeding becomes available.
A Notice of Opposition can be filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) by any party who believes they would be damaged by the registration of the mark.
This is essentially a federal court proceeding within the USPTO. The opposing party (the "opposer") would formally argue that the mark should not be registered, citing grounds such as descriptiveness, failure to function as a mark, or that the term is generic. The applicant would then have an opportunity to respond.
This process is more complex and costly than a Letter of Protest and often requires the assistance of legal counsel.
Strategic Considerations
This scenario serves as a modern lesson in the interplay between public discourse and brand creation. Attempting to claim ownership of a term born from public criticism is a high-risk strategy.
It can draw more attention to the negative connotation—an example of the "Streisand Effect"—and may ultimately fail to meet the statutory requirements for trademark registration.
A central pillar of trademark law is its function as an instrument of source designation, not as a tool for linguistic control. The exclusive rights granted by a trademark registration are tied to its use in commerce to prevent consumer confusion about the origin of a product or service.
This legal protection does not convey an absolute monopoly over a word itself. A registration does not empower the owner to silence all uses of the term, especially when it is used in a descriptive, critical, or otherwise non-commercial context.
Doctrines like nominative and descriptive fair use exist specifically to balance the rights of the trademark holder with the public's interest in free expression and competition.
The scope of a trademark is therefore confined to its role as a commercial identifier, a principle that becomes particularly tested when applicants seek rights in terms with pre-existing public meanings.
IP professionals should advise clients to be cautious when considering trademarking terms that have a pre-existing, community-driven meaning, as the public's understanding of a term can be a formidable obstacle to registration.
The "Mebounds" application will be a noteworthy case to watch as it progresses through the USPTO.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.