There are three limited exceptions to the general rule requiring that all foreign wording be translated. See TMEP §§809.01(b)(i)–809.01(b)(iii).

It is generally unnecessary to provide a translation of a foreign term if the term appears in an English dictionary (e.g., croissant, fiesta or flambé). However, if a term that appears in the English dictionary appears in a mark as part of a foreign idiomatic phrase or other unitary expression, a translation of the idiomatic phrase or unitary expression is required. The translation must not break the phrase into its individual word elements or translate only the individual words that do not appear in the English dictionary. Such a translation would serve no useful purpose because it would not convey the true commercial impression of the phrase.

Example: If the mark included the phrase "la fiesta grande," an appropriate translation would be "the great celebration" or possibly "the great fiesta." It would be inappropriate to translate only the individual foreign elements "la" and "grande." The ultimate goal is to provide a translation that reflects the true meaning of the non-English wording in the mark and the commercial impression made by the entire phrase. See TMEP §809.02 regarding equivalency in translation.

It is generally unnecessary to provide a translation of foreign articles or prepositions, such as "de," "le," "la," or "il," when combined with English terms, because their meaning is generally understood and, in this context, they are being used to convey an impression different from their foreign meaning. For example, in the mark "LE CASE," it is unnecessary to translate "LE."

It is generally not necessary to translate wording from dead languages. Cf. In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d 1347, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting 1 J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks & Unfair Competition §11:34 (5th ed. 2023 & Supp. 2025)). A dead language is "[a] language, such as Latin, that is no longer learned as a native language by a speech community." https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=dead+language (accessed March 9, 2026).

Similarly, it is generally not necessary to translate wording from languages that are obscure. Cf. In re Spirits Int’l, N.V., 563 F.3d at 1351; In re Spirits of New Merced, LLC, Ser. No. 78710805, 2007 TTAB LEXIS 93, at *9-10 (2007) (in considering whether "Yosemite" was primarily geographically descriptive, the Board found no evidence that the general public would be familiar with the derivation of "Yosemite" as meaning "those who kill" or "the killers" in the Native American Miwok tribal language, or "that this meaning would be anything but obscure to them"); In re Fiore, LLC, Ser. No. 76445173, 2005 TTAB LEXIS 296, at *18 (2005) (acknowledging Old English was an obscure language); Gen. Cigar Co. v. G.D.M. Inc., 988 F. Supp. 647, 660-61 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (finding applicant had no obligation to disclose that the term COHIBA for cigars means "tobacco" in the language of the Taino Indians in the Dominican Republic, because cigar smokers in the United States would not be aware of such a meaning).

However, the determination of whether a language is dead or obscure must be made on a case-by-case basis, based on the meaning that the term would have to the relevant purchasing public.

Example: Latin is generally considered a dead language. However, if there is evidence that a Latin term is still in use by the relevant purchasing public (e.g., if the term appears in news articles), then that Latin term is not considered dead. The same analysis should be applied to obscure languages.

See TMEP §1207.01(b)(vi) regarding the applicability of the doctrine of foreign equivalents to wording from dead or obscure languages.