Is this cybersquatting?

[A. Person]

If I register a domain name containing two or three keywords and one of them is a brand name, is it considered cybersquatting?

If so, what is the worst case scenario? I'm required to turn over the domain name to the brand owner?

 

[todaygold]

Too difficult to say without knowing the domain name in question. Some brands, like Coca-Cola have worldwide recognition and the word 'cocacola' itself means nothing other than for the brand. Other words, like Apple, have meaning outside of the company.
And NO, the worst that could happen is the company SUES you and demands thousands of dollars in damages, plus lawyers fees.

 

[dordomai]

if the brand name is not generic e.g 'Adidas' then it is Cybersquatting.

worst case: Lawsuit (unlikely), UDRP (more likely)

 

[A. Person]

What about a combination of generic brand and keyword like applecomputers.com?

 

[dordomai]

What about a combination of generic brand and keyword like applecomputers.com?

AppleJuice.com, OK
AppleMountains.com Maybe. Depends on what you do with it also. (Parking is not a good idea)
AppleComputer.com. Very Bad. 100% Cybersquatting.

 

[todaygold]

What about a combination of generic brand and keyword like applecomputers.com?

That would be quite obvious, without a doubt, cybersquatting. Now if it was AppleTrees, that would be completely different. And do you really want to risk a lawsuit from a company with billions of dollars? It's definitely not worth the risk.

 

[A. Person]

OK, what to do with domains I already own containing a trademark? Delete them? Let them expire? Sell them?

 

[dordomai]

OK, what to do with domains I already own containing a trademark? Delete them? Let them expire? Sell them?

deactivate so that it does not resolve. Delete.

 

[urlurl]

delete,

 

[Domains - Wanted]

OK, what to do with domains I already own containing a trademark? Delete them? Let them expire? Sell them?

Don't panic. You haven't done anything illegal. Yet! As long as you don't abuse the trademark and don't show bad faith, there is nothing wrong with registering and holding on to the name(s). Depending on the specifics of the case, you might want to consider if there is any sense renewing the domain(s).

 

[KamWest]

I always check trademarkia dot com and stay away from trademarks.

I would register AppleCandies but never AppleDownloads

 

[jberryhill]

Some brands, like Coca-Cola have worldwide recognition and the word 'cocacola' itself means nothing other than for the brand.

You are confusing two things there - fame and inherent distinctiveness.

Marks which are "inherently distinctive" are made-up words which have no meaning other than as a trademark. Microsoft, Xerox, etc.

Coca-Cola is not "inherently distinctive". Coca-cola has a definite meaning, because it was named after its two primary ingredients in the original formulation (after carbonated water, phosphoric acid and sugar) - coca extract and cola extract. Coca and cola are both generic terms for two plants. In fact, Coca-cola is still produced using a processed coca leaf extract.

It's a good example of a descriptive term which acquired distinctiveness over time, by becoming associated with a particular product. It was so successful, that it has since become "famous" which is a term of art in trademark law referring to marks for which concurrent uses of the mark by others would reasonably be believed by consumers to have originated with the primary mark owner.

This case from 1920 is typical of several legal decisions that were obtained by Coca-Cola against arguments that their mark was either deceptive or descriptive:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/254/143/case.html

We are dealing here with a popular drink, not with a medicine, and although what has been said might suggest that its attraction lay in producing the expectation of a toxic effect, the facts point to a different conclusion. Since 1900, the sales have increased at a very great rate, corresponding to a like increase in advertising. The name now characterizes a beverage to be had at almost any soda fountain. It means a single thing coming from a single source, and well known to the community. It hardly would be too much to say that the drink characterizes the name as much as the name the drink. In other words, "Coca-Cola" probably means to most persons the plaintiff's familiar product to be had everywhere, rather than a compound of particular substances.

 

[todaygold]

You are confusing two things there - fame and inherent distinctiveness.

Marks which are "inherently distinctive" are made-up words which have no meaning other than as a trademark. Microsoft, Xerox, etc.

Coca-Cola is not "inherently distinctive". Coca-cola has a definite meaning, because it was named after its two primary ingredients in the original formulation (after carbonated water, phosphoric acid and sugar) - coca extract and cola extract. Coca and cola are both generic terms for two plants. In fact, Coca-cola is still produced using a processed coca leaf extract.

It's a good example of a descriptive term which acquired distinctiveness over time, by becoming associated with a particular product. It was so successful, that it has since become "famous" which is a term of art in trademark law referring to marks for which concurrent uses of the mark by others would reasonably be believed by consumers to have originated with the primary mark owner.
/QUOTE]

Interesting, I did not know that background on Coca-Cola, I was just using an example that popped into my head. So basically my 'theory' is right, I just used a bad example?