To show abandonment of a mark, the party claiming abandonment must show both the trademark owner's discontinuance of trademark use and an intent not to resume use. An intent not to resume use may be inferred from the circumstances. Moreover, nonuse for three consecutive years is prima facia evidence (initial evidence that may be overcome) of abandonment.

Use of a mark means a bona fide use of such mark in the ordinary course of business and not simply a reservation of a right in a trademark.

Improper licensing, or "naked" licensing occurs when the trademark owner effectively releases control of its trademark and therefore loses trademark protection.

Naked licensing is an uncontrolled licensing of a mark whereby the licensee can place the mark on any quality or type of goods or services, raising a grave danger that the public will be deceived by such a usage. The only effective way to protect the public when a trademark is used by licensees, is to place on the licensor the affirmative duty of policing in a reasonable manner the activities of its licensees.

Failure to provide quality control may constitute naked licensing, leading to abandonment of a mark. When the trademark owner fails to exercise reasonable control over the use of the mark by a licensee, the presence of the mark on the licensee's goods or services misrepresents their connection with the trademark owner because the mark no longer identifies goods and services that are under the control of the owner of the mark. This may result in the trademark ceasing to function as a symbol of quality and controlled source, leading to an involuntary loss of trademark rights. To the extent that a plaintiff may rely on a naked licensing theory, its burden is high. Because naked licensing, if established, is treated as an abandonment of the trademark which triggers the loss of trademark rights against the world, anyone attempting to show such abandonment via naked licensing faces a stringent burden of proof.

Even a mark once considered distinctive enough to function as a trademark -- for example, "Thermos" and "Pilates" -- can become generic through public usage, causing it to become a victim of "genericide." Sometimes "genericide" occurs as the result of a trademark owner's failure to police the mark, resulting in widespread usage by competitors leading to a perception of genericness among the public, who see many sellers using the same term. Alternatively, sometimes a term intended by the seller to be a trademark for a new product is taken by the public as a generic name because customers have no other word to use to name a new product or service.

When genericide occurs trademark rights are lost. Evidence of a mark becoming generic can often occur with how the mark is used. A trademark should always be referred to as an adjective. Use of a trademark as a noun or verb could lead to genericide. To protect against genericide, a trademark owner should follow the trademark with a generic identifier of the goods and or services associated with the trademark. For example, saying "Google It" could lead to Google becoming generic for an internet search. Therefore, Google would prefer the public say something like "Use Google to perform an internet search" which would result in "Google" not becoming generic.

All of this is important because generic words cannot be protected as trademarks. Examples of trademarks that have become generic are "Aspirin" and "Escalator."