On January 16, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected preliminary injunctive relief based on the registered “PIZZA PUFF” mark, finding that the term could be understood by relevant consumers as the name of a type of pizza product rather than as an indicator of source. Illinois Tamale Company had long sold pizza puff products and owned registrations relating to “Pizza Puff” and “Puff.” After Little Caesars launched its “Crazy Puffs” product, Illinois Tamale alleged that the defendant’s use of related wording infringed its trade mark rights. The Court emphasized that genericness turns on the primary significance of the term to the relevant public. The decisive question is whether consumers understand the term as identifying a category of goods or as identifying a particular commercial source. Evidence may include consumer surveys, dictionary definitions, and actual use by consumers, competitors and the industry. Although a federal registration carries a presumption of validity, that presumption is rebuttable. In this case, the evidence concerning marketplace perception sufficiently undermined the premise that “PIZZA PUFF” was protectable for purposes of establishing a likelihood of success on the merits. The decision is a reminder that registration alone does not eliminate genericness risk. Brand owners should use marks consistently as source identifiers, pair product terms with house marks where appropriate, monitor third-party usage, and preserve evidence demonstrating how consumers perceive the mark.