WHEN VIRAL WORDS BECOME VALUABLE BRANDS
Abstract
From “rizz” to “delulu,” internet slang has become a defining feature of online culture. An crucial
concern arises as these viral expressions find their way into branding and marketing: may terms
made famous by the internet ever be claimed as trademarks?
Introduction
As you scroll through social media for just a few minutes, you will observe something peculiar.
Terms that were nonexistent a few years ago have now become integral to daily dialogue. One
person may have “rizz”, another might be described as “delulu”, and a particular situation could be
labeled as “sus”. These expressions proliferate so rapidly that they seem less like a language and
more akin to instinctive responses of the internet.
However, this is where the situation becomes intriguing. Consider the scenario of launching a
clothing brand named “Rizz”, only to be informed by someone that they hold the legal rights to
that term. Alternatively, envision a skincare brand attempting to prevent others from incorporating
“delulu” in their advertisements because they have secured it as a trademark.
At first glance, this appears odd. After all, how can something that originated from online humor
and communal usage transform into private ownership?
When a Word Ceases Being Just a Word
To grasp this issue, it’s beneficial to consider the true function of trademarks. A trademark isn’t
about possessing language; it’s about claiming a source identity. Simply put, it informs consumers
that a product originates from a specific business. This is why brand names gain strength over
time. People don’t merely recognize the word; they acknowledge the company that stands behind
it. Now, let’s apply this concept to internet slang. Initially, terms like “rizz” or “delulu” are merely
jokes or phrases utilized by countless individuals online. No one owns them. No one governs
them. They are shared by everyone and yet belong to no one simultaneously. However, what
occurs when a brand begins to use one of these terms so prominently that people start to link it
exclusively with that brand? Suddenly, the term shifts from being general to feeling like a specific
label. This is where trademark law starts to take notice.
The Legal Challenge: Everyday Words Are Difficult to Trademark
Indian trademark legislation, specified in the Trade Marks Act of 1999, draws a clear line. Everyday words that people use in conversation usually cannot be trademarked. The rationale is simple: no one should claim ownership over language that is vital for everyone’s communication. Consequently, when a term is already prevalent in public dialogue, claiming it as your own becomes a complex endeavor. Internet slang is a prime example of this phenomenon. These words are not invented by companies; they are birthed from social interactions within online communities, freely shared, and routinely adapted across different situations. This creates a considerable hurdle for those seeking to trademark such terms. As a slang term becomes more
widespread, it becomes more entwined with the general vernacular, making it progressively challenging to enforce proprietary rights over it.
The Twist: when the meaning shifts in the market
Despite the strict nature of the law, there exists a narrow opportunity for slang to gain protection.
Trademark law introduces the concept of ‘secondary meaning’. This occurs when a term, even if it
started as a common word, becomes closely associated with a specific business in the minds of
consumers.Consider it this way. If you consistently associate a particular word with a specific
brand, that word may transition from being mere slang to functioning as a trademark in a legal
context.However, securing this status with internet slang proves challenging. These terms are
often too prevalent and spread too rapidly. By the time a business attempts to claim ownership of
them, they have typically already integrated into the public lexicon.
The Real Conflict: Culture vs Control
At the core of this matter is a profound tension. Internet slang isn’t born in corporate offices. It
emerges from group chats, memes, comment sections, and short videos. It proliferates because
individuals use it freely, remix it, and adapt it.In contrast, trademark law revolves around control.
It grants a single entity the authority to prevent others from utilizing a sign in a commercial
setting.Thus, when these two realms intersect, an unsettling question arises. Should elements of
internet culture ever be converted into private property?If companies are permitted to trademark
slang too easily, the very fabric of language could become disjointed. Common phrases might
unexpectedly bear legal limitations. Conversely, if the law entirely denies protection, brands could
struggle to establish their identity in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
Why Brands Still Try Their Luck?
Despite the legal ambiguity, businesses are keenly interested in internet slang. The rationale is
straightforward: capturing attention.Incorporating viral terms into branding allows a company to
appear contemporary, relatable, and in tune with younger demographics. Even if they can’t
completely claim ownership of the term, they can still reap the rewards of its widespread appeal.In
certain instances, companies attempt to push the envelope by merging slang with distinctive
branding techniques, aiming to forge a strong enough connection that consumers associate the
term exclusively with them.
However, this approach carries significant risks. What seems fashionable today may quickly
become overly commonplace tomorrow, and what appears distinctive in marketing might never
achieve the legal criteria for trademark protection.
Is it possible to truly possess “Rizz” or “Delulu”?
The straightforward truth is: generally no, The majority of internet slang expressions are too
prevalent, too adaptable, and too broadly utilized to be eligible for trademark protection. They
are part of common language, not something that can be owned privately.Nonetheless, the
concept isn’t entirely out of reach. If a slang term is employed in a very particular, consistent,
and brand-oriented manner, it could gain sufficient recognition to operate similarly to a
trademark. However, this is more of an exception than a standard.
Conclusion
Internet slang illustrates the rapid evolution of language in our digital era. Meanwhile, trademark
law emphasizes the importance of managing ownership of words with great care.At the
intersection of these two dynamics lies an intriguing question: should the most inventive
expressions of online culture be accessible to all, or are they destined to transform into branded
commodities?Currently, terms like “rizz” and “delulu” are still part of the internet’s lexicon.
However, as branding increasingly intertwines with online culture, the distinction between
communal expression and proprietary ownership may soon become blurred.
References
The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India)
N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation
Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
ITC Ltd. v. Philip Morris Products SA
Marico Ltd. v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd.
Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (Oxford University Press, 1976).
J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition (Thomson
Reuters).
WIPO, Introduction to Trademarks and Brand Protection.
USPTO Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (for comparative understanding of
common phrases and informational marks).