Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Booking.com Trademark Case
The Supreme Court of the United States issued an order on Nov. 8, 2019 granting certiorari in the matter of United States Patent & Trademark Office et al. v. Booking.com BV (No. 19-46). The issue is whether an applicant may obtain a trademark registration for a generic term by adding a top-level domain suffix to that term and demonstrating through a survey that the public considers the entire term to indicate the origin of applicant's services, rather than the genus of such services. Put another way, the Court will decide whether an applicant may appropriate a term that is generic for the services offered by the applicant by appending ".com" to that term and building up goodwill in that entire term.
Prior Cases Considering This Issue
Several cases have considered protection for a mark comprising a top-level domain, such as ".com," combined with a term that is otherwise generic for the relevant services. No case appears to have previously allowed registration or found such a mark protectable. In In re Hotels.com, L.P., 573 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit considered the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's rejection of applicant's HOTELS.COM mark as generic, because it was a combination of "hotels" and ".com," both of which it found to be generic based on evidence such as dictionary definitions and third-party websites for hotel reservations that also used "hotel" in their second-level domain. The TTAB found that the composite term HOTELS.COM communicates no more than the common meanings of the individual components (i.e., a website providing information on hotels), though the TTAB did note that if it were reversed on its finding of generic-ness and the mark were deemed descriptive, then the applicant's evidence demonstrated acquired distinctiveness such that the mark would be registerable. The Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB's refusal, finding that the generic "hotels" did not lose its generic character by placement in the domain name hotels.com, and deferring to the TTAB's weighing of the competitive uses of "hotel" in domain names as against a survey submitted by the applicant along with a number of customer declarations indicating that the consuming public understood hotels.com to be a brand indicating source. While finding the term to be generic despite evidence that it was recognized as a brand, the Federal Circuit nonetheless held open that some quantum of evidence of consumer recognition could hypothetically render an otherwise "generic.com" mark to be protectable. The Federal Circuit has decided other cases in a similar fashion, including, for example, In re 1800Mattress.com OP, LLC, 586 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (MATTRESS.COM) and In re Reed Elsevier Props. Inc., 482 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (LAWYERS.COM).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?