domain Pet.co

[Salvatore Giannone]

Please appraise. ThNk you

 

[Jay Ha]

For your reference, there was a real case simillar to your situation. The domain is tes.co, and the result is that the complainant (i.e. the trademark owner Tesco) won and the domain was ordered to be transferred to the complainant. (http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DCO2013-0017)

Extension does matter because the Panel considers name and extension as a whole. So your pet.co is trademarked. If you would like to sell the domain to Petco, you are doing in bad faith and it is cybersquatting and illegal. However, there should be no problem if you use the name in ways other than animal supplies business.

But 'pet' is a dictionary word while tes.co is a clear domain hack so your argument is invalid. The user should not call themselves Petco and they'll be good I assume.

 

[domainguy50]

But 'pet' is a dictionary word while tes.co is a clear domain hack so your argument is invalid. The user should not call themselves Petco and they'll be good I assume.

Micro.soft micro is also a dictionary word

I have a feeling if someone made a pet store called pet.co it might be a problem. Imagine the logo with a tiny period between pet and co


Maybe it all depends whether you’re a pet supply business or not? If not, pet.co is probably ok

 

[Jay Ha]

Micro.soft micro is also a dictionary word

I have a feeling if someone made a pet store called pet.co it might be a problem. Imagine the logo with a tiny period between pet and co


Maybe it all depends whether you’re a pet supply business or not? If not, pet.co is probably ok

True there might be some limitation on the use of advertising material so I'd say they can just lose the 'co' thing in their logos/ads/marketing material. An expert advice is surely needed since there are conflicting opinions here.

 

[Henry Y]

But 'pet' is a dictionary word while tes.co is a clear domain hack so your argument is invalid. The user should not call themselves Petco and they'll be good I assume.

The panels consider confusion similarity (i.e. comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the trademark to assess whether the trademark is recognizable within the domain name). Regardless of dictionary word or not, pet.co has exactly the same textual components of Petco. So based on confusion similarity, despite only dictionary words, domain hacks like face.book and snap.chat have legal issues as well.

I agree your point that should not sell the name as "Petco" to avoid legal issues.


A reference of how the panels judge disputed domain names:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0

 

[JordanH]

So I guess, in your opinion, ex. gooogle.com is fine? (Cybersquatting) They are different.
Or petco.shop or petco.store would still be legal? And no TM Issues?

You completely misunderstand what he is saying.
pet.shop is fine. petco.shop isnt. There is a BIG difference. PETCo does not own the TM to "PET". .co is just a TLD. PETCO can't sue the owner of pet.com just as much as he can't sue the owner of pet.co.

NOW if the owner of pet.co tried to pass themselves off as being the PETCO company, then there would be issues.

 

[domainguy50]

.

You completely misunderstand what he is saying..
NOW if the owner of pet.co tried to pass themselves off as being the PETCO company, then there would be issues.

NOW if the owner of pet.co tried to pass themselves off as being the PETCO company, then there would be issues.[/QUOTE]what if you don’t try to pass yourself off as petco but still open a pet supply store at pet.co

You’ve yet to answer that question. Something tells me it would get real ugly quickly and go to court and not end in a good result. It might not even go to court, could be udrp wipo dispute


I’m not saying you’re wrong, cuz I’m not totally sure either, there’s just some confusion here for me lol

 

[bmugford]

You completely misunderstand what he is saying.
pet.shop is fine. petco.shop isnt. There is a BIG difference. PETCo does not own the TM to "PET". .co is just a TLD. PETCO can't sue the owner of pet.com just as much as he can't sue the owner of pet.co.

Sure they can. There is a very low bar to actually sue someone.

If the suit is with or without merit would be for a court to decide, but meritless claims make their way through the legal system daily.

Brad

 

[slader23]

I suggest that the owner forwards the domain/creates a page that is completely unrelated to Petco. Throw on a landing page with an something that explains the initials P.E.T .It could be anything just make it up. Force any complaint to acknowledge the clearly distinguishable evidence that the name is being used for something unactionable.

 

[domainguy50]

I suggest that the owner forwards the domain/creates a page that is completely unrelated to Petco. Throw on a landing page with an something that explains the initials P.E.T .It could be anything just make it up. Force any complaint to acknowledge the clearly distinguishable evidence that the name is being used for something unactionable.

Maybe

 

[pinkdragon]

I suggest that the owner forwards the domain/creates a page that is completely unrelated to Petco. Throw on a landing page with an something that explains the initials P.E.T .It could be anything just make it up. Force any complaint to acknowledge the clearly distinguishable evidence that the name is being used for something unactionable.

http://www.petresin.org/faq.asp

Huge business, not related to animals.

 

[coco77]

NOW if the owner of pet.co tried to pass themselves off as being the PETCO company, then there would be issues.

My question still remains...can you still sell pet related stuff and compete with PetCo?