直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Lizzo Wins Big: Grammy and TTAB Victories

March 8, 2023

Authored and Edited by Lisa P. London; Margaret A. Esquenet

For music superstar Lizzo, 2023 began with a bang. Not only did Lizzo win Record of the Year at the 2023 Grammy Awards for her smash hit About Damn Time but her trademark holding company won a rare reversal from the TTAB, overcoming a “failure to function” refusal for her pending applications to register the phrase 100% THAT BITCH.

Lizzo LLC filed two applications seeking to register the phrase 100% THAT BITCH for apparel in Class 25, a mark inspired by a lyric in one of Lizzo’s most well-known songs, Truth Hurts. In refusing registration, the Examining Attorney argued that the phrase 100% THAT BITCH was “a commonplace term, message or expression widely used by a variety of sources that merely conveys an ordinary, familiar, well-recognized concept or sentiment,” and thus failed to function as a trademark, under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051-1053, 1127.  

As with most “failure to function” refusals, this case turned on the evidence of record regarding third-party use of the expression 100% THAT BITCH. In support of refusal, the Examining Attorney relied upon website evidence submitted to the USPTO in a Letter of Protest, screenshots from additional websites selling apparel and other merchandise making primarily ornamental use of the phrase 100% THAT BITCH, and an urbandictionary.com entry.  The Examining Attorney also argued that “Lizzo did not originate the phrase 100% THAT BITCH but merely popularized it,” pointing to Lizzo’s acknowledgment that the phrase was a derivation of the popular phrase “that bitch” and Lizzo’s decision to give writing credit to the party who authored the Tweet that inspired the meme that inspired Lizzo to include the line “100% THAT BITCH” in her hit song.

Countering the Examining Attorney, Lizzo pointed to the USPTO’s registration of other musicians’ lyrics-inspired trademarks; her company’s enforcement efforts against third-party sellers of merchandise featuring her mark; and statements on the third-party websites that the Examining Attorney put into evidence discussing Lizzo and her song, to demonstrate that consumers associate 100% THAT BITCH with Lizzo and is not simply as a common expression.

The TTAB agreed with Lizzo, concluding that the Examining Attorney’s evidence did not demonstrate that the phrase 100% THAT BITCH was “used in general parlance or that it conveys a common social, political, patriotic, religious, or other informational message . . . .” Central to the TTAB’s decision was its finding that there was no evidence of widespread use of the phrase over a long period of time by many users before Lizzo popularized it.  That finding, coupled with Lizzo’s successful enforcement efforts and third-party use that specifically sought to associate goods bearing the phrase with Lizzo and her music, ultimately persuaded the TTAB to find that 100% THAT BITCH is not, in fact, a commonplace expression but instead is entitled to registration on the Principal Register.

The case is In re Lizzo LLC, 23 USPQ2d 139 (TTAB 2023) (precedential).

Tags

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Related Industries

Communications

Media

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Lisa P. London
Of Counsel
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4281
Email

Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgment After Erroneous Verdict Form and Eligibility Analysis

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Noninfringement Ruling in Hatch-Waxman Litigation Based on Claim Construction, Prosecution History Estoppel, and the Disclosure-Dedication Rule

June 26, 2026

Conference

7th International Conference on Biofuels and Bioenergy

June 25-26, 2026

Edinburgh

At the PTAB Blog

New Informative Decision Applies the USPTO’s U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Use of AIA Proceedings Memo

June 18, 2026

Lecture

Latest Developments in U.S. Section 337 Investigations and Response Strategies

June 12, 2026

Dongguan

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP