Protect EL TETEO AT ALL COSTS!
USPTO Trademark Registration
The trademarking of “Teteo” by a private company raises a critical question: Should cultural movements, created collectively by a community, be allowed to be trademarked at all? The answer is simple—no.
Much like “jazz” or “hip-hop,” Teteo isn’t a product of one creator or entity. It’s a living, breathing piece of culture—a collective expression of joy, music, and community. Teteo was born from the streets of the Dominican Republic with no one entity as the owner. To allow a single company to trademark it is not just problematic—it’s fundamentally wrong.
1️⃣ You Can’t Own What a Community Creates
Cultural movements like Teteo don’t belong to any one person or organization—they emerge organically from shared experiences and values. Teteo is a Dominican slang term that grew into something larger, representing music, dancing, and community gatherings. Its meaning, energy, and identity come from the people who live it every day, not from a corporation seeking profit.
Allowing one entity to trademark Teteo essentially steals a shared cultural creation and puts it under private control. The same argument applies to why terms like “hip-hop” or “rock and roll” cannot and should not be owned—they are too big, too collective, and too integral to a community’s identity to belong to one entity.
2️⃣ Trademarking a Cultural Movement Leads to Exploitation
When companies are allowed to trademark cultural expressions, it opens the door for exploitation:
The original community may lose control over how the term is used.
Creators, performers, and organizers in the community could be forced to pay fees or navigate legal barriers just to celebrate their own culture.
The profits flow to corporations, not to the people who made the term and movement meaningful in the first place.
Take Teteo as an example. This term has become globally known through social media, music, and its associated dance, but its roots are in Dominican neighborhoods. A trademark effectively cuts the community out of the equation and allows others to profit from their culture.
This mirrors past patterns where inner-city slang, fashion, and music have been appropriated, rebranded, and monetized without proper acknowledgment or compensation for the communities that created them.
3️⃣ Trademarking Broad Cultural Terms Is Legally and Logically Flawed
Trademark law is meant to protect brands—distinctive names, logos, or phrases tied to specific goods or services, created by an identifiable source. It’s not designed to give ownership over shared cultural phenomena.
For example:
Nike can trademark its swoosh logo or slogan (“Just Do It”) because they’re tied to a specific company and product line.
However, something like “basketball” can’t be trademarked because it describes an activity that belongs to the public—it’s generic and shared by everyone.
Similarly, Teteo is not tied to a specific company or creator. It’s a term that represents a collective cultural experience—music, dancing, and community gatherings born from Dominican neighborhoods. Trying to trademark Teteo is like attempting to trademark “block party” or “folk music.” It undermines the very purpose of trademark law, which is to prevent consumer confusion, not monopolize cultural identity.
This is also why terms like “hip-hop” or “jazz” cannot be trademarked. These words represent genres, movements, and entire cultural histories that belong to no one individual and everyone simultaneously. Allowing a trademark on Teteo risks erasing its roots and restricting the communities that created it from freely celebrating their own culture.
In short, cultural movements like Teteo are too broad, too shared, and too tied to a community’s identity to be owned by any single entity.
4️⃣ Cultural Movements Are Public Goods, Not Private Property
Teteo, like other cultural movements, is a public good. It belongs to the people, not to corporations. When we allow cultural expressions to be trademarked, we risk turning shared traditions into commodities—profitable for a few, inaccessible to the rest.
Imagine if someone trademarked “hip-hop” in the early days of its evolution. Would local artists, DJs, and dancers have had the freedom to build and grow the genre? Likely not.
By trademarking Teteo, we’re setting a dangerous precedent. What stops someone from trademarking other cultural phenomena—terms, dances, or even entire genres? If this continues, it could lead to a future where cultural creation is stifled by legal restrictions.
The Solution: Reject Trademarks for Cultural Terms
Cultural terms like Teteo should never be eligible for trademark protection. Here’s why:
They’re collective, not individual. No single person or entity created Teteo. It belongs to the neighborhoods and communities that gave it life.
They’re too broad. Trademarking Teteo is like trademarking “fiesta” or “block party.” These terms describe universal concepts tied to shared human experiences.
They stifle creativity. Trademarking cultural terms creates barriers for the very people who drive innovation and creativity in those spaces.
Instead of enabling this exploitation, we need a global acknowledgment that culture cannot—and should not—be privatized.
To my network: Do you agree that terms like Teteo, hip-hop, or jazz should remain in the public domain? How do we ensure culture stays in the hands of the people who create it?
Let’s discuss.
#CulturalPreservation #TrademarkIssues #ElTeteo #IPLaw #ProtectCulture
