IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: 'GOLIA' primarily a surname, not a translation of Goliath, cannot be trademarked, (Apr 20, 2026)

By Sherri M. Schroeder, J.D.

The Board upheld the Trademark Examining Attorney’s refusal under Section 2(e)(4) to register the proposed mark because the primary significance of “GOLIA” to the purchasing public is that of a surname.

An applicant seeking to trademark the name of a line of non-medicated candy confectioneries and non-medicated candies carrying the same last name as himself has lost his appeal after a Trademark Examining Attorney refused to register the proposed mark pursuant to Section 2(e)(4) of the Trademark Act. Although the Applicant argued that the primary significance of “GOLIA” to the purchasing public would not be merely as a surname because the name is “exceedingly rare and virtually unknown” to the American public and pointing to prior third-party registrations recognizing “GOLIA” as the Italian translation of “Goliath,” the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not agree. Considering the frequency of and public exposure to “GOLIA” as a surname in the U.S., whether it is the surname of anyone connected with the applicant, whether the word has any other recognized meaning, and whether it has the structure and pronunciation of a surname, the Board concluded that the record established the primary significant of “GOLIA” to the purchasing public was that of a surname within the meaning of Section 2(e)(4) and affirmed the refusal to register the mark (In re Michael J. Golia, No. 98516586 (T.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2026)).

Rarity. The Board first considered the frequency of and public exposure to “GOLIA” as a surname in the U.S. The record contained evidence of approximately 600 people in the U.S. with the surname “Golia.” Refusing to follow a “strictly numerical approach,” the Board also considered the extent to which the public had been exposed to the surname through news reports and the like. According to the Board, the record also contained evidence of over two dozen media mentions and references to individuals with the surname “Golia.” It did not matter to the Board that there was no evidence of a nationally famous figure with the surname. Even though the total number of people in the U.S. with that surname was “somewhat low,” “the examples of people in law, the arts, business, and other fields having the surname Golia show meaningful and fairly broad public exposure to GOLIA as a surname,” concluded the Board.

Connection. The Board also found it “probative” that the individual Applicant’s last name was Golia, citing three cases that held a proposed mark was merely a surname when it was that of, for example, the applicant’s corporate president or founder and individuals continually involved in the business. Therefore, the Board concluded that this inquiry also supported refusal.

Other meaning. Next, the Board looked to see whether “GOLIA” had any recognized meaning other than as a surname. The Examining Attorney provided dictionary evidence showing “GOLIA” did not appear in dictionaries as a word in English or Italian, which supported a finding that the term did not have a recognized meaning other than as a surname. The Applicant argued that the term has a recognized meaning as “the Italian equivalent of GOLIATH, a Biblical and cultural reference connoting size and strength.” However, he did not submit any dictionary or translation evidence. Instead, he relied on copies of two third-party registrations for the mark “GOLIA” that included translation statements stating that “Golia” meant “Goliath,” a Nonfinal Office Action proposing that translation, and another third-party registration with no translation statement or claim of acquired distinctiveness. The Board, however, distinguished those earlier applications because there was no evidence that anyone connected with the owners of the prior registrations had “GOLIA” in their names. The Board also stated that as a general matter, the cancelled registrations were only evidence of the fact they were issued. Even if the evidence indicated “Golia” had some significant in Italian as referring to “Goliath,” it did not show that the term had that recognized meaning in the U.S. Finally, the Board reviewed the Examining Attorney’s multiple sources identifying “Golia” as a surname. Ultimately, the Board found the evidence supported a finding that the primary significance of “GOLIA” is as a surname, “potentially derived from the Biblical name ‘Goliath’ as a reflection of the physical characteristic of size.”

Structure and pronunciation. Lastly, the Board considered record evidence relating to whether, due to the term’s structure or pronunciation, the public would or would not perceive “GOLIA” to have significance as a surname. The Examining Attorney provided evidence including listings of other surnames that start with “Gol” or end with “ia.” The evidence included both the Dictionary of American Surnames and U.S. Census Data. This showed many names starting with “Gol,” including a number consisting of five letters like “GOLIA,” and evidence of a number of surnames in use in the U.S. that differ from “GOLIA” by only one letter. While the court agreed the individual names “may not be common ones when viewed in isolation” and noting a lack of direct evidence of consumer perception, the court nevertheless found the evidence to show that consumers encounter other surnames with similar structure and pronunciation to “GOLIA.” Therefore, this inquiry also supported a finding that the primary significance of “GOLIA” is as a surname.

Conclusion. Stating that “the record leaves us with no doubt,” the Board found that the record established that the primary significance of “GOLIA” to the purchasing public is that of a surname and that “GOLIA” is primarily merely a surname with the meaning of Section 2(e)(4). Therefore, the Board affirmed the refusal to register the mark.

The Case is Serial No. 98516586.

Judge: NA.

Attorneys: David Chen (IP Attorneys Group, LLC) for Michael J. Golia. Kennina IP for the USPTO.

Cases: Trademark USPTO