.mobi Having to do with Mobi & marks.

[Don_OKC]

I am still learning all the FAQ's about marks so excuse my ignorance.

Just how many claims to the exclusive use of "mobi" can their be?
I found two claims for mobi at the USPTO and an article from overseas
where the company has mobi with a TM on it.

Here is the evidence:

The link to that oversea TM on mobi: http://webcast.broadcastnewsroom.com/articles/viewarticle.jsp?id=88746

The two mobi TM & SM claims at the USPTO.

 

[namewaiter]

but what does 'mobi' have to do with '.mobi'? - run a search for 'com' or 'net'

 

[Don_OKC]

I have searched "com" and "net" not finding any marks as a Singular.
They are all "com" or "net" plus a variable.
The "mobi" is marked as a singular twice. Lots of folks will be using the
term "mobi" within their business in the new .mobi domain.

Perhaps I am worrying over nothing? Trademarks on "mobi" won't matter
when your providing an advertised "mobi" service using the trademarked term "mobi"?

 

[scandiman]

If I understand trademarks correctly, the holder of a mark can only collect damages if you are using the mark in the same industry or if your use of the mark could confuse the public that you are the same entity.

A good example is the word "quantum". A search at USPTO.GOV will reveal 130 live marks using quantum. There are numerous companies using the term in many different industries and neither is running afoul of the other until one tries to expand their services into an industry already occupied by another mark holder.

I'm not a trademark lawyer so I recommend everyone check into this stuff for themselves.

 

[Don_OKC]

Both mark above will cover just about everything in Mobi hardware, software and internet products based upon what you say. Their marks should be "mobi plus a variable" such as "Mobi Whatever" but not a singular "mobi" IMOP. I need full use of the word/name/term "Mobi" to function with my .mobi domains providing Mobi products and services.

 

[scandiman]

Well, the first and most important comment I can make is get a professional opinion as I am not a trademark attorney, I'm just thinking out loud here. That being said, I'm curious about the issue of first use. Per mtld.mobi, Nokia started the dotmobi idea back in 2000 which predates the 2006 filing dates of both these marks.

The first mark by Mobi Technologies, Inc. (FYI... www.getmobi.com) claims first use back in December 2003 which jives with their site whois: Creation Date: 2003-09-08 as well as the wayback machine at archive.org. This is about the same time Nokia, Vodafone and Microsoft formalized their dotmobi initiative.

The other applicant, Route 1 Inc (FYI... route1.com) has their earliest news regarding their mobiAlliance in July '05 but the wayback machine shows them using the term mobi back in 2004 which is around the same time .mobi was submitted to icann.

These companies don't own the exclusive right to use mobi in any commerce, but the question I have is could these registered marks affect any competing commerce site using the .mobi extension? Is the extension the mark?

Here is another way of looking at it. There are 4 live marks for the numbers 888 issued to companies selling tea, tobacco, jewelry and fishing reels. I highly doubt these marks would entitle the holder to damages because a competing company had an 888 toll free number in their advertising.

 

[Don_OKC]

Scandiman,

Thanks for your reply.

I am thinking out-loud too. Being a little peon in mobi domaining, it's failure would not affect my life. I was curious as to the potential of damaging TM issues since "mobi" seem's to have become a generic word/name/term since the .mobi TLD debut. I'll let the issue rest and we'll see what happens in the near future.

Thanks again for you research in the above post!