I am admittedly no trademark expert but I have a couple of insights on this one I would like to share...
Judge Learned Hand on the test for "genericness" -
“What does the relevant public think the term connotes?".
Aside from "Is there a registered TM for this domain name?", that little pointer should be your starting point for any domain name TM question.
Next comment, from the decision of a TM court (not ICANN decision) on "channel # trademarks".
"… the record supports a finding that television viewers know quite well – that each local cable system, metropolitan area or other distinct geographical region has its own “Channel 9,” and that these channels frequently, and sometimes exclusively, feature news programs…
… The record shows that as members of the public travel from one part of the country to another, they would view any promotion of NEWS CHANNEL 9 as indicating only the opportunity to obtain television news programs on channel 9, whether it be through a local television cable system or from a local VHF broadcast station."
In short this is a big hurdle for broadcasters to overcome because if we take channel 7 for example, Australia's major network is Channel 7, America has a major channel 7, Singapore, Malaysia, India etc....
Which of these broadcasters could legitimately be able to claim trademark rights over channel 7. I suspect none because quite simply they do not have the exclusive right to channel 7 although that may do in a limited geographic area.
But then you have terms that may be capable of exclusiveness - say "Channel V".
And of course, copying a "channel #" logo or passing youself off as being, for example the Indian channel 7 could cause some issues!
Interestingly I saw in an earlier post a decision on "speed.tv" that all .tv owners should be aware of. See here
http://www.namepros.com/dot-tv/146522-speed-tv-dispute-domain-goes-complainant-1.html and read the case notes.
This one was a real surprise to me and should be a warning against taking any armchair expertise (including my own) or even legal expertise in assessing domain name TM issues.
However IMHO this decision was wrong. I have no problem with cybersquatters of true trademarks having to surrender relevant names but interestingly I noted this comment in the foxmoviechannel TM case (.com) from ICANN's judgement notes.
"The top-level domain “.com” is negligible because top-level domains are a required feature of every domain name".
In other words in ICANN's determined that the TLD should be ignored in deciding whether a TM is breached.
That means in the fox case that foxmoviechannel.com is the same as the "fox movie channel" TM. Fair enough, it would be ridiculous to think otherwise.
Lets turn that around though, the holder of speed.tv lost
because of the TLD. IMO, the owner of speed.com would not have lost that case in a million years.
Instead ICANN basically agreed that "speed" was a generic term but ignored the "dot",
and applied the TLD in deciding that speed.tv infringed the Speed TV TM. The .tv thus led to the trademark breach when really it should have been irrelevant assuming ICANN followed their own rules.
I really can't get my head around how this was a fair decision other then that the guy who lost the domain name did have a nasty habit of registering TM's and was probably being made an example of.
So in short:
1. Do a TM search
2. Apply good old fashioned common sense.
3. Act in good faith
4. Don't do anything stupid like suggesting a relationship with a TM owner of a similar TM'd name.
5. Drop it if you find out it you should never have regged it or seek permission from the TM owner to use it (hey it sometimes happens).
Hope that little speil is useful.
Cheers DOTTV fan