Couldn't 'example.mobi' and 'example.com' be TMs in their own right?

[dan_e_l]

Another question:
Couldn't 'example.mobi' and 'example.com' be TMs in their own right?

As in, lets say the difference between 'Dan's Pizza' & 'Dan's Hardware' - they both would be business names but offering different services...
Does a different extension indicate a different product?

Hmmmm.....

 

[Ronald Regging]

No... a different product indicates a different product...

if example.com does 'pizza' and example.mobi does 'hardware' than your fine...
but they cant both do the same thing...

Well, this is assuming there is an issue of TM involved.

 

[Peter]

that is not strictly true. For example you could not go and register microsoft.mobi if it was available regardless of what business you were in.

 

[Ronald Regging]

Sure you could, assuming you can find a TM category that they haven't registered and you provide services/products that they dont. Most of the major corporations register a TM in every category to widely protect their brand so in the case of Microsoft, you are correct. But it's not neccesarily this way for every company. For example, you could register YouTube.ext and sell golf clubs...

 

[DNQuest.com]

The best example is Apple corp and Apple computers... both lay claim to the TM "Apple" but coexsist within thier own realms.

Slip, As far as the Microsoft example, I have to agree with filth on this one. Microsoft is a unique name, not generic. What you are saying only applys to generic names.

 

[Peter]

Yes apple cannot claim a complete trademark on the word apple as it was a generic word well before the company itself started up. Microsoft however was not a term used anywhere (not to my knowledge anyway) and was a completely made up word for the company. If a company tried using that name it would be safe to say that they are trying to rip off microsoft and use their name for their own benefit.

1 thing that can change that and is evident with hoover is that when a term is over used then it becomes saturated and in the end the company cannot control their trademark. Hoover was and still is a company who make vacuum cleaners but as time has progressed because of the dominance over the market from Hoover the word has become somewhat generic and alot of people use it instead of vacuum cleaner which is the proper term for the device. It is now quite difficult for them to contest someone elses use over the word.

 

[DNQuest.com]

From the uspto:

When a trademark, service mark, collective mark or certification mark is composed, in whole or in part, of a domain name, neither the beginning of the URL (http://www.) nor the TLD have any source indicating significance. Instead, those designations are merely devices that every Internet site provider must use as part of its address.

If a proposed mark is composed of a merely descriptive term(s) combined with a TLD, the examining attorney should refuse registration under Trademark Act §2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the ground that the mark is merely descriptive. This applies to trademarks, service marks, collective marks and certification marks.

If a mark is composed of a generic term(s) for applicant’s goods or services and a TLD, the examining attorney must refuse registration on the ground that the mark is generic and the TLD has no trademark significance.

So what point are you trying to make?

 

[Halobitt]

Yes apple cannot claim a complete trademark on the word apple as it was a generic word well before the company itself started up.

True, I have apple.la.
If i was to put ipod stuff on it, or apple corps music stuff that would be regging it in bad faith, and either company could probably take it off me I would imagine. Might use the domain for something more fruity.

Hoover was and still is a company who make vacuum cleaners but as time has progressed because of the dominance over the market from Hoover the word has become somewhat generic and alot of people use it instead of vacuum cleaner which is the proper term for the device. It is now quite difficult for them to contest someone elses use over the word.

As a kid I didn't know what a vacuum cleaner was but I knew what a hoover was. Plus the name is so descriptive, I doubt if people in 10 years time will people will be saying "I need to Dyson up this mess"

 

[Peter]

As a kid I didn't know what a vacuum cleaner was but I knew what a hoover was. Plus the name is so descriptive, I doubt if people in 10 years time will people will be saying "I need to Dyson up this mess"

Yes I very much doubt people will be saying that as well but they do not have as much dominance as hoover had those decades ago. Hoover cannot be descriptive of the product as it is not actually a word.Vacuum cleaner is descriptive however after all it does clean by creating a vacuum and sucking muck up.

 

[Ronald Regging]

As a kid I didn't know what a vacuum cleaner was but I knew what a hoover was. Plus the name is so descriptive, I doubt if people in 10 years time will people will be saying "I need to Dyson up this mess"

Not to go off topic, but everything they make today is mass produced junk that doesn't even have a shelf life of 10 years. We've become a world of consumers, where quality and craftsmanship have went to the wayside. Fast, cheap and convenient, thats what its all about. Years from now, no one will be saying anything, because there isnt a single product on the market thats worth remembering. Its all destined for the land fill or to be recycled and turned into more stupid, low quality crap. Actually I think in this day and age people give more importance to intangible products than they do real life ones. I.e., Google, Microsoft, myspace, etc... Seems rather strange to me.

 

[Halobitt]

Hoover cannot be descriptive of the product as it is not actually a word.

True, I should have expanded that and said it was onomatopoeic. 'Dyson' just
doesn't have the same poetry.