I. Introduction

Gay Pride symbols, slogans, and designs have long served as potent emblems of the LGBTQ+ community’s resilience and struggle for equality. From the rainbow flag to the slogan “Love is Love,” these symbols encapsulate cultural meaning far beyond the commercial sphere. Yet, in recent years, they have become fixtures in mainstream marketing, particularly during Pride Month. Businesses now routinely launch Pride-themed products and seek intellectual property protection for related branding.

Increasingly, LGBTQ+-owned brands and creators are doing the same—not just to prevent copycats, but to build equity in the cultural and commercial value they’ve created.

This article explores the intersection of intellectual property (IP) law and the LGBTQ+ community, focusing on how trademark law—designed to prevent consumer confusion and protect brand value—can empower LGBTQ+ expression. Drawing on key USPTO decisions and case law, it provides guidance for LGBTQ+ creators, nonprofits, and businesses seeking to protect their identity and branding within the existing legal framework.

II. The Commercialization of Pride Symbols

The increasing visibility of LGBTQ+ identity in mainstream branding—often associated with so-called “rainbow capitalism”—has brought both opportunity and innovation. Many companies now incorporate rainbow designs and Pride slogans into seasonal products and advertising to signal inclusivity. Some campaigns are paired with charitable donations or long-term commitments to LGBTQ+ causes.

A good example of a clever LGBTQ+ marketing campaign comes from Skittles, known for its registered slogan “Taste the Rainbow.” Each June, Skittles temporarily removes its signature rainbow imagery, releasing limited-edition gray packaging with the message: “Only one rainbow matters during Pride.” Proceeds support LGBTQ+ organizations like GLAAD, and the visual shift from colorful to colorless draws intentional attention to the Pride flag.

As slogans and symbols rooted in activism are adopted for commercial use, intellectual property law becomes a central mechanism by which organizations monetize pride marketing initiatives.

III. Trademarking Pride Symbols

Trademarks exist to identify the source of goods or services and to prevent consumer confusion. LGBTQ+ entrepreneurs, nonprofits, and event organizers may use trademarks to secure legal protection for their unique branding. However, problems arise when applicants seek to register terms or symbols that are generic, widely used, or culturally shared.

One prominent example is the rainbow flag, originally designed in 1978 by artist and activist Gilbert Baker. Notably, Baker declined to seek copyright or trademark protection for the design, believing that it should remain in the public domain to serve as a universal symbol of LGBTQ+ pride.

Despite the original flag being unregistrable, companies have attempted to register variations of rainbow-themed marks, especially when paired with distinctive design elements or company names. However, efforts to register more general Pride-related phrases have frequently failed. For instance, numerous applications for “GAY PRIDE,” “GAY PRIDE PARADE,” “GAY PRIDE COFFEE,” and “GAY PRIDE BINGO” have been abandoned or canceled by the USPTO. These include Serial Nos. 78801867 (GAY PRIDE), 85217451 (GAY PRIDE PARADE), 97843882 (GAY PRIDE COFFEE), and 97885906 (GAY PRIDE BINGO), among others.

Many LGBTQ+-themed trademarks—especially those using commonly shared expressions like “Pride” or “Gay Pride”—face refusal on the Principal Register because they are not considered sufficiently distinctive at the time of filing. However, such marks may still be eligible for the Supplemental Register, a secondary register maintained by the USPTO for marks that are capable of acquiring distinctiveness but do not yet meet the threshold.

The Supplemental Register does not provide all the benefits of the Principal Register—such as presumptive nationwide rights, incontestability, or automatic enforcement tools in court—but it does offer important protections. These include the right to use the ® symbol, the ability to block confusingly similar marks from being registered, and the opportunity to build legal rights over time. Most importantly, it gives mark owners a clear path forward.

After five years of substantially exclusive and continuous use, a mark on the Supplemental Register may become eligible for the Principal Register upon a showing of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §?1052(f)). This makes the Supplemental Register a strategic choice for LGBTQ+-owned businesses using culturally resonant but widely used language—they can begin protecting their brand now, while working toward stronger rights in the future.

One example is Serial No. 90025449 for “GAY PRIDE APPAREL,” which is currently registered on the Supplemental Register. While the mark could not initially qualify for full protection, its registration signals a strategic approach: secure partial rights now, build distinctiveness over time, and eventually seek Principal Register status.

IV. Organizational Trademark Strategies and Event Control

Although broad Pride-related terms often fail to qualify for trademark protection, LGBTQ+ organizations have succeeded in registering more specific and distinctive branding. For example, Heritage of Pride, Inc., the nonprofit that organizes official Pride events in New York City, holds federal registrations for “NYC PRIDE” (U.S. Reg. No. 7335022) and “STONEWALL50” (U.S. Reg. No. 5848389). These registrations allow the organization to control its branding, license its marks to corporate sponsors, and maintain consistency and legitimacy across merchandising and promotional activities.

Such strategies highlight a successful path for LGBTQ+ stakeholders seeking protection: rather than attempting to trademark universal or generic terms, they may instead register unique event names, stylized logos, and original branding developed specifically for their campaigns. Through distinctiveness and consistent use, these marks can satisfy legal standards while remaining true to the organization’s mission.

VII. Conclusion

As Pride becomes increasingly commercialized, the intersection of intellectual property and LGBTQ+ identity continues to evolve. The legal system faces the delicate task of preserving the cultural commons while enabling legitimate brand protection.

The key challenge lies in drawing a legal boundary between branding and belonging.

Sources

· Gilbert Baker Foundation, The Flag’s History, https://www.gilbertbaker.com.

· Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017).

· Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §?1202.04 (July 2023).

· https://www.delish.com/food-news/a32628609/gray-skittles-pride-month/