garrett200

Appraisals on this name, "WebstersDictionary.mobi".

NOTE: It is NOT TM'd, "Websters - anything" is considered a generic term. (Thanks to those of you who did some research this morning and helped to find that out).

Honest appraisals please.

From Wikipedia:

The name "Webster" used by others

Since the late 19th century, dictionaries bearing the name "Webster's" have been published by companies other than Merriam-Webster. Some of these were pirated reprints of Noah Webster's work, some were revisions by others. One such revision was Webster's Imperial Dictionary, based on John Ogilvie's Imperial Dictionary, itself an expansion of Noah Webster's American Dictionary.

As a result of lawsuits filed by Merriam, American courts ruled that "Webster's" entered the public domain when the Unabridged did, in 1889 (G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie, 159 Fed. 638 (1908)) and another court ruled in 1917 that it entered the public domain in 1834 when Noah Webster's 1806 dictionary's copyright lapsed. Thus, Webster's became a genericized trademark and others were free to use the name on their own works.

Since then, use of the name "Webster" has been rampant. Merriam-Webster goes to great pains to remind dictionary buyers that it alone is the heir to Noah Webster[1]. The issue is more complicated than that, however. Throughout the 20th century, some non-Merriam editions, such as Webster's New Universal, were closer to Webster's work than modern Merriam-Webster editions. Indeed, Merriam's progressive revisions came to have little in common with their original source, while the Universal, for example, was minimally revised and remained largely out of date. However, Merriam-Webster revisionists find solid ground in Noah Webster's concept of the English language as an ever-changing tapestry.

So many dictionaries of varied size and quality have been called Webster's that the name no longer has any specific brand meaning. Despite this, many people still recognize and trust the name. Thus, Webster's continues as a powerful and lucrative marketing tool. In recent years, even established dictionaries with no direct link to Noah Webster whatsoever have adopted his name, adding to the confusion. Random House dictionaries are now called Random House Webster's, and Microsoft's Encarta World English Dictionary is now Encarta Webster's Dictionary. The dictionary now called Webster's New Universal no longer uses the text referred to in the previous paragraph but is a commissioned version of the Random House Dictionary.

garrett200

Is it worth anything? 0.00 +/- reg fee? LOL

Jeff

Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com

Who did you consult with ... regarding the potential ™ issue?

IMHO, if the folks above in the provided link desired your .MOBI domain name (which is pretty unlikely) and eventual website (as a dictionary website), they would have a pretty strong case of obtaining it from you, in my view. Also, I think the perception of this probable ™ issue ... will prevent the domain from achieving above Reg. fee valuations. Thus, $0.00 - < Reg. fee, IMHO.

Best of Luck.
-Jeff

__________________

nrmillions

Merriam-Websters is a TM and a company but WebstersDictionary is generic and not a company. Anyone is allowed to use the name and tons of different dictionaries and companies such as microsoft already do. Merriam-Webster will probably want the name but would have to buy it. Name has good end user potential.

Also read this thread.

http://www.namepros.com/dot-mobi/336...mobi-name.html

garrett200

I consulted Wikopedia. Did you read my initial post?

As a result of lawsuits filed by Merriam, American courts ruled that "Webster's" entered the public domain when the Unabridged did, in 1889 (G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Ogilvie, 159 Fed. 638 (1908)) and another court ruled in 1917 that it entered the public domain in 1834 when Noah Webster's 1806 dictionary's copyright lapsed. Thus, Webster's became a genericized trademark and others were free to use the name on their own works.

You're wrong about the TM issues Jeff. There really are none on this name. Granted, I wasn't aware of that when I regged it, I just got lucky.

Jeff

I don't believe at all that "WebstersDictionary" is a generic term, IMHO ... and I would be very careful about offering that out as fact, as well! Again, in my view, Merriam-Webster, if they ever desired, would have a pretty strong case of obtaining it from the O.P. as a developed domain / dictionary webiste. Instead, I would strongly suggest speaking with a qualified attorney who specializes in area of ™ and copyright law, IMHO.

Wholesale value is $0.00 - < Reg. fee, IMHO.
Best of Luck.
-Jeff

__________________

garrett200

And who are you consulting that you came to that determination? Or, is it just your opinion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_Dictionary

Jeff

It's my strong opinion ... that you instead speak with a qualified attorney who specializes in area of ™ and copyright law, IMHO.

All the best!
-Jeff

__________________

garrett200

Why? I already have found 2 sources that verify it is public domain.

Edit: Make that 4 sources.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...h-webster.html

Webster's dictionary was so popular that "Webster's" became synonymous with dictionary to many Americans. As a result, the Webster's name lost trademark protection and is now used by numerous publishers in the titles of their dictionaries.


http://www.m-w.com/info/faq.htm (Merriam-Webster's own website)

Other publishers may use the name Webster, but only Merriam-Webster products are backed by over 150 years of accumulated knowledge and experience.


http://www.publaw.com/fairusetrade.html

A trademark that becomes a generic term loses its trademark protection. An example of this in the publishing industry is the mark "Webster's". Webster's was used so frequently that it became a generic term. When this occurred the original trademark owner lost the ability to protect its mark and other publishers could then use the term "Webster's" for their own dictionaries and related products.


http://www.iht.com/articles/1995/03/04/atopic_1.php


OK, where's my offers?

garrett200

Any other appraisals, besides Jeff's "$0.00 - < Reg. fee"?

This baby has phat OVT of 241,000.....

__________________

Adopt A Polar Bear Today!

thebiffenator

No Offense Garrett but I think it is defenintly A TM issue which could be proven in badfaith. (just about Everyone knows what websters means at least in America) Number one they have history printed of prior dictionarys since can remember. And its not a local state company but know nationwide and probably around the world company. I don't think they need a trademark since they are a publisher of the dictionary (just my thoughts).
But with the above, it may work out.

__________________
mobiz.mobi USA's Mobile Locator Try it out! PHANS.MOBI Join Phans.mobi Phillies AreThe MLB Champs!!! Support the best team in Baseball.

garrett200

LOL, ok. Someone show me proof that it's a TM issue. It's definitely not, I've seen countless other sources, including a Supreme Court ruling that says it's not.

Thanks for the opinions though.

__________________

Adopt A Polar Bear Today!

circa1850

Garrett,

I understand your insistence and I found the Wikipedia article interesting. I think some of the links in that article were even more fascinating.

But a couple words or caution:

First, WIKIPEDIA is an open source project that anyone can contribute to so it is sometimes not exact let alone correct. Always find a second source in addition. In this case, I think it is correct. But do not count on it being 100% fact all the time, such as the .mobi hi-jacked description reportedly from one of our own.

Secondly, still be cautious as the words Webster(s) Dictionary is part of a TM as noted below:

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 78332343 CHAKRA CLEARING ELIXIRS--COLOR, CRYSTAL, LIGHT, SOUND TARR LIVE
2 78289375 CIRCADIAN INHOSPI TARR LIVE
3 78301881 2908541 WEBSTER'S ONLINE DICTIONARY THE ROSETTA EDITION TARR LIVE
4 76375181 2807195 THE MONTMARTRE LOUNGE TARR LIVE
5 73622959 1468992 WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY TARR LIVE
6 72158638 0758864 MW WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY TARR LIVE

The one highlighted is published by Simon and Schuster. That is where the "confusingly similar" issue may come into play. Should a TM issue arise and this go before a panel, even with the "genericized" word being Websters, it would still be a crap shoot on how the panel would rule.

Number 6, by the way, is Merriam Webster which we already know to be a factor.

Most likely nothing would ever come of this. But there is a cautious side of me, even though I knowingly take risks and cross the lines.

With that said, this opens up a new door of branding Garrett's Own WD.

garrett200

Circa,

I totally understand that Wikipedia is an open source project. But there is a Supreme Court decision that says it's a generic term. The only reason "Webster's New World Dictionary" is TM'ed is because of the word "New World", to make it their own.

Like if I were to TM "Garrett's Webster's Dictionary", the TM would be accepted.

I've reasearched this extensively, and although I am not 100% certain on the lack of TM issues, I am 99% certain I will have no problems because this is known to be a public domain (no pun intended) term.

Thanks for your input though, you do bring up some good points worth investigating.

Wow, I never thought this reg would take up 3 days of my time researching, etc., but I think it will pay off in a big way.

__________________

Adopt A Polar Bear Today!