Can a Trademark Be Refused Because the Name Used Differs from the Applicant’s Full Legal Name?

A recurring issue in trademark registration arises when a mark contains a personal or professional name that does not exactly reproduce the applicant’s full legal name.

This may occur where a business owner, doctor, consultant, professional, or family enterprise uses a shortened name, professional name, surname, or commercially recognised form of identity.

The question then becomes:

Does the absence of an exact match between the trademark and the applicant’s official identification automatically mean that the trademark contains the “name of another person”?

The answer should not be determined by a purely literal comparison.

The more important question is whether the name appearing in the trademark is, in substance, genuinely associated with the applicant.

The Legal Purpose Behind Protecting the “Name of Another Person”

Trademark legislation generally seeks to prevent an applicant from registering the name, surname, image, or identifying feature of another person without consent.

The purpose of this restriction is to protect personal rights and prevent the unauthorised commercial exploitation of another individual’s identity.

It is therefore important to distinguish between two fundamentally different situations.

The first is where the mark genuinely contains the name of an identifiable third party.

The second is where the name is actually connected to the applicant himself, but appears in a shortened, professional, commercial, or linguistically different form.

Treating both situations in exactly the same way risks extending the prohibition beyond its intended purpose.

Exact Matching Should Not Be the Sole Test

In commercial practice, individuals are not always known by the exact wording appearing on their identity documents.

A professional may be known by:

• a shortened name;

• a surname;

• a family name;

• a professional designation;

• an Arabic or English version of the name;

• or a commercially established form of the name.

The fact that the trademark does not reproduce the applicant’s full civil name word-for-word should therefore not automatically establish that the name belongs to someone else.

A literal approach may be especially problematic where all surrounding evidence shows that the relevant name is consistently associated with the applicant.

The better inquiry is:

Does the name identify the applicant in practice, or does it identify a distinct third party?

The Importance of Supporting Evidence

This type of trademark dispute is often determined by evidence rather than by the wording of the mark alone.

The link between the name and the applicant may be demonstrated through different types of official or commercial records.

For example:

• commercial registration documents;

• professional licences;

• government-issued permits;

• sector-specific licences;

• professional classification certificates;

• historical use of the name;

• business records;

• public references;

• advertising and market recognition.

Where such documents consistently connect the relevant name with the applicant and his business or profession, they provide strong evidence that the name does not belong to an unrelated third party.

The underlying grievance itself relied on this type of evidentiary structure, including commercial records, professional licensing, and other official material linking the name to the applicant’s activity.

The Difference Between Formal Identity and Commercial Identity

A useful distinction can be drawn between a person’s formal legal identity and his commercial or professional identity.

The legal identity is the full name appearing in official documents.

The commercial identity may be the shorter form by which the individual is actually known to customers, patients, clients, or the relevant market.

These two identities may differ in form while referring to the same person.

For trademark purposes, that distinction may be highly relevant.

A refusal based solely on the absence of an exact textual match may overlook the commercial reality that the name has already become associated with the applicant’s professional activity.

Why the Consent Requirement Matters

The law’s requirement that the person concerned—or in some cases that person’s heirs—consent to the use of the name is itself significant.

It suggests that the provision is directed toward an identifiable third party whose rights may actually be affected.

If no such third party can be identified, and the name is demonstrably linked to the applicant himself, the justification for requiring third-party consent becomes substantially weaker.

This supports a more functional interpretation of the provision.

The question should not be whether another person could theoretically bear the same name.

It should be whether the mark appropriates the identity of a specific person other than the applicant.

The Problem with an Overly Formalistic Interpretation

An excessively strict approach may create an unintended barrier to trademark protection.

If every variation between the name in the trademark and the applicant’s full legal name were treated as evidence of third-party ownership, legitimate applicants could be prevented from protecting names that they have used lawfully for years.

This could affect:

• professionals trading under a shortened name;

• family businesses;

• medical practices;

• consultancies;

• founders using their surnames;

• and businesses operating under established commercial identities.

Such an approach may effectively impose a requirement of absolute textual identity between the mark and official identification.

That requirement does not necessarily follow from the purpose of the law.

Judicial Interpretation of “Another Person”

Saudi commercial jurisprudence has addressed the interpretation of the expression “another person” in the context of trademark registration.

One judicial approach has emphasised that the protected person should be identifiable and specific, rather than merely hypothetical.

The reasoning is practical: if the law requires consent from the relevant person or that person’s heirs, there must first be an identifiable person from whom such consent could meaningfully be obtained.

‎⁨

Saudi judicial decisions have also recognised that family names and commercially established names may acquire legitimate distinctiveness through actual and continuing use, particularly where no prior right of a specific third party has been established.

‎⁨

A More Appropriate Legal Test

A more balanced analysis should therefore consider several questions together:

• Is the name genuinely connected to the applicant?

• Is there an identifiable third party claiming rights in that name?

• Has the applicant used the name consistently in professional or commercial activity?

• Is that use supported by official or reliable records?

• Would registration actually interfere with another person’s rights?

• Is there a real likelihood of confusion as to the source of the relevant goods or services?

This approach is more consistent with the protective purpose of trademark law than a purely mechanical comparison of names.

Practical Lesson for Trademark Applicants

Applicants seeking to register a trademark containing their own personal, family, or professional name should not rely solely on the assumption that the connection is obvious.

The connection should be documented.

Where the name used in the trademark differs from the full legal name, the applicant should consider building an evidentiary record showing continuity between:

the individual, the business, the professional activity, and the name used in the trademark.

That evidence may become decisive if the application is challenged or refused.

Conclusion

A difference between the name appearing in a trademark and the applicant’s full legal name should not automatically lead to the conclusion that the mark contains the “name of another person.”

The decisive issue is one of identity and evidence.

Where the applicant can demonstrate that the name has been genuinely, continuously, and lawfully associated with him and his professional or commercial activities, the absence of an exact textual match should not necessarily determine the outcome.

The more important question is not:

“Does the name match the identity document exactly?”

It is:

“Does the evidence establish that this name genuinely identifies the applicant rather than an unrelated third party?”

That distinction can be critical in trademark registration disputes.