The book internet has found its latest villain, and predictably, the legal analysis online is about as nuanced as a TikTok comment section.

Over the past week, a trademark registration for HOT GIRLS READ obtained by Allie Rose LLC for merchandise categories including bookmarks, stickers, notebooks, and apparel (registration number 8130042)[1] ignited backlash across BookTok, Bookstagram, Threads, and Reddit. The uproar intensified when community members alleged that sellers were receiving takedown demands despite the phrase having circulated in reading culture for years. (Indeed, this author has sported a “hot girls read” sticker on her phone for almost two years.) Much of the discourse frames this as straightforward corporate overreach. The legal reality, as usual, is messier and more interesting.

The Distinctiveness Problem

Trademark law does not reward cleverness. It rewards distinctiveness, that is, whether consumers perceive a phrase as identifying a particular source of goods.[2] “Hot girls read” has functioned for years as a cultural slogan, not a source identifier. It grew out of broader “hot girl” internet vernacular, owing much to Megan Thee Stallion’s cultural footprint, and became common parlance among readers, influencers, bookstores, and indie sellers well before any single entity claimed it.

Widespread third-party use is precisely where trademark claims get shaky. When consumers encounter a phrase and think message rather than brand, you have a distinctiveness problem. “Nike” identifies a source. “Just Do It” identifies a source because decades of marketing built that association. “Hot Girls Read” on a tote bag? Arguably, that reads as self-expression, not origin identification.

Registration Isn’t Invincibility

A persistent misconception in the online discourse is that USPTO approval renders a mark legally bulletproof. It doesn’t. The examination process is robust, but examiners work from the record before them; they are not conducting deep studies of BookTok. Registrations can be challenged after issuance through cancellation proceedings under 15 U.S.C. § 1064,[3] and can be attacked on grounds including descriptiveness, genericness, fraud, abandonment, or prior use by others.

The Ornamentality Issue

For trademark practitioners, the most interesting question here may be ornamentality. The USPTO routinely refuses registration of slogans on apparel and merchandise when consumers are likely to view the wording as decorative rather than source-identifying.[4] Consumers encountering HOT GIRLS READ splashed across a sweatshirt likely interpret it the same way they interpret “Dog Mom” or “Booktrovert:” as a statement about themselves, not an indication of who made the shirt.

That does not automatically invalidate the registration, but it explains why a lot of trademark lawyers raised an eyebrow at this one immediately.

The Enforcement Paradox

Even assuming validity, enforcement creates its own trap. Trademark owners are expected to police their marks and failure to do so can erode rights over time.[5] So critics accuse the registrant of overreach by sending takedowns, while trademark doctrine essentially demands policing. If the mark sits near the border between protectable branding and common cultural expression, aggressive enforcement invites the very scrutiny that threatens the registration.

What This Is Really About

The HOT GIRLS READ dispute is not really about bookmarks or sweatshirts. It’s about a tension that trademark law will keep confronting as online communities generate slogans, memes, and identities that no single participant truly owns. Trademark law is built to identify source. Internet culture is built to repurpose and share language collectively. Those systems are increasingly in friction, and we are going to keep seeing disputes like this one until doctrine catches up.

The question at the center is deceptively simple: when does a phrase become a brand, and when does it simply belong to the culture?

I’m watching this one closely, both as a trademark lawyer and as someone who has strong opinions about her TBR pile.

Lauren Rucinski is a member of Kean Miller’s Intellectual Property and Environmental Regulation groups, where she provides strategic counsel on complex trademark, patent, copyright, and unfair competition matters. A registered patent attorney licensed to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Lauren helps clients protect and maximize the value of their intellectual property assets while navigating evolving legal issues – including those emerging at the intersection of branding, technology, and internet culture.

[1] Note that the mark has been registered since Feb. 3, 2026 with a date of first use of back in January of 2021.

[2] See Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 9 (2d Cir. 1976) (discussing the spectrum of trademark distinctiveness).

[3] A petition for cancellation of a trademark registration may be filed at any time. (“A petition to cancel a registration of a mark, stating the grounds relied upon, may, upon payment of the prescribed fee, be filed as follows by any person who believes that he is or will be damaged, including as a result of a likelihood of dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 1125(c) of this title, by the registration of a mark on the principal register…”) 15 U.S.C. § 1064. However, a mark which has been registered for more than five years may only be cancelled on the grounds enumerated in Trademark Act § 14 (the mark has become generic, obtained by fraud, or has been abandoned). Id. at § 1604(3).

[4] See TMEP § 1202.03; In re Eagle Crest, Inc., 96 USPQ2d 1227 (TTAB 2010) (finding ONCE A MARINE, ALWAYS A MARINE would not be perceived as a trademark to identify and distinguish applicant’s goods).

[5] See e.g., Perry v. H. J. Heinz Co. Brands, L.L.C., 994 F.3d 466, 475 (5th Cir. 2021).