Need advice on a very interesting trademark question

[fiosbroadband]

This is an example and not my actual trademark domain issue, but very similar.

daychat.com is the other site. They have the word "daychat" as one word trademarked. Its listed on uspto.gov as a 7 letter word (one word).

With that said, would it be legal to own and develop day-chat.com as a 2 word phrase.

Maybe i'm just losing my mind. Usually when a site or business trademarks a name, they usually file it as e.g. "Day Chat" to cover any issues.

Am I making any sense here, or am I totally wrong?

 

[DNQuest.com]

Well, would it confused customers if they went to day-chat thinking they would be on daychat? TMs protect the owner from names that are similar or "confusingly" similar. On the onset, the name is confusingly similar, right? So it isn't a matter of one or 2 two being TMed, its a fact that is a name simialr or confusingly similar to the TM?

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Are the two terms "confusingly similar" in your mind?

Will my Domain Name infringe on a current trademark?
The scope of a trademark is determined by whether there is "likelihood of confusion" (note that this is different from whether there has been any actual confusion), between that trademark and another trademark in the minds of the consuming public. Likelihood of confusion is generally determined by reviewing 13 factors, often called the DuPont factors:
1) The similarity or dissimilarity of the marks in their entireties as to appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression.
2) The similarity or dissimilarity and nature of the goods . . . described in an application or registration or in connection with which a prior mark is in use.
3) The similarity or dissimilarity of established, likely-to-continue trade channels.
4) The conditions under which and buyers to whom sales are made, i.e. "impulse" vs. careful, sophisticated purchasing.
5) The fame of the prior mark . . . .
6) The number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods.
7) The nature and extent of any actual confusion.
8) The length of time during and the conditions under which there has been concurrent use without evidence of actual confusion.
9) The variety of goods on which a mark is or is not used . . . .
10) The market interface between the applicant and the owner of a prior mark . . . .
11) The extent to which applicant has a right to exclude others from use of its mark on its goods.
12) The extent of potential confusion . . . .
13) Any other established fact probative of the effect of use.


-Allan :gl:

 

[DNQuest.com]

^^^^^ I like that