Trademarks and dot Mobi

ezinaz · 10-12-2006, 07:34 PM

Searching on the USPTO site at uspto.gov, I notice that Cingular Wireless has filed the following trademarks:

music.mobi (filing date 5/31/06)
video.mobi (filing date 5/31/06)

I understand that the late filing date did not allow them to register the domains during the trademark/sunrise registration period. However, do they have any rights whatsoever since they have filed these trademarks? (or was this just a desperate attempt to try to claim a stake to those domains???)

sf2010 · 10-13-2006, 04:12 AM

cingular is lame.

those two words are highly generic in nature and i certainly hope that uspto rejects their application.

same would apply to apple.mobi if a person was lucky enough to get it before apple computer, there is no reason why this person cannot develop the site into anything but apple computer.

noq · 10-13-2006, 04:51 AM

There are quite a few other companies that h ave filed for trademark protection on their dot mobis. Cingular also filed a tardemark for multimedia.mobi. Many other companies, including ATT, Future Media Architects, investment houses, and end users have been filing for trademark protection on their dot mobi's. Many have been doing so for thepast several years.

ezinaz · 10-13-2006, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by noq

There are quite a few other companies that h ave filed for trademark protection on their dot mobis. Cingular also filed a tardemark for multimedia.mobi. Many other companies, including ATT, Future Media Architects, investment houses, and end users have been filing for trademark protection on their dot mobi's. Many have been doing so for thepast several years.

Ok, so I'm interested in what specific protection it gives for these companies. For example, does Cingular's trademark give them any special rights to the music.mobi and video.mobi, even though those words are premium?

texasgamer · 10-22-2006, 10:32 PM

Along with video.mobi and music.mobi Cingular also filed for the word answertones.
I think these words are generic in nature.

10-12-2006, 07:34 PM	THREAD STARTER #1 (permalink)
ezinaz NamePros Regular Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 409	Trademarks and dot Mobi Searching on the USPTO site at uspto.gov, I notice that Cingular Wireless has filed the following trademarks: music.mobi (filing date 5/31/06) video.mobi (filing date 5/31/06) I understand that the late filing date did not allow them to register the domains during the trademark/sunrise registration period. However, do they have any rights whatsoever since they have filed these trademarks? (or was this just a desperate attempt to try to claim a stake to those domains???)

10-22-2006, 10:32 PM	#5 (permalink)
texasgamer Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Corpus Christi, Texas Posts: 2,373	Along with video.mobi and music.mobi Cingular also filed for the word answertones. I think these words are generic in nature. __________________ Sara Palin

10-13-2006, 04:12 AM	#2 (permalink)
sf2010 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 1,223	cingular is lame. those two words are highly generic in nature and i certainly hope that uspto rejects their application. same would apply to apple.mobi if a person was lucky enough to get it before apple computer, there is no reason why this person cannot develop the site into anything but apple computer.

10-13-2006, 04:51 AM	#3 (permalink)
noq Account Suspended Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 340	There are quite a few other companies that h ave filed for trademark protection on their dot mobis. Cingular also filed a tardemark for multimedia.mobi. Many other companies, including ATT, Future Media Architects, investment houses, and end users have been filing for trademark protection on their dot mobi's. Many have been doing so for thepast several years.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)