STL Arch question

[airwav]

I have a domain that I have a question about TM.
It is StLouis Arch dot US.
I did a search for TM and came up with this: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=t5rhrc.2.1

This does not specifically state that my domain is infringing.

Any opinions greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[Ben42]

I'm not a lawyer or TM expert, but I don't think your domain would infringe on this mark.

Nice .us, definetly develop it.

 

[Ronald Regging]

The search session for that link has expired, unfortunately I'm too lazy to try to find it There have been cases before where owners of famous architectural buildings, etc.. have won against people using photos. Such as the Eiffel Tower, etc. They claim the building is so unique that the design is a copyright and therefore it is infringement to use photos commercially without consent. I can kind of see that to some degree. I'd hate to own some awesome structure and then have other people making money off selling pictures of it.

Not really sure how this relates to domains though.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

The St. Louis Arch is run by the US park service as a national monument. I don't think you should have any problem with that domain. Your search session has expired, but the only thing I found in a search was this phrases used as a marketing slogan for the area "EXPLORE ST. LOUIS THERE' S MORE THAN MEETS THE ARCH.". That TM is for the slogan which is unique wording. You domain is pretty generic and used in everyday language and therefore probably not TMable.

 

[DNQuest.com]

I honestly do not know how this plays out. I can make arguements on both sides. I will play devils advocate here though, if by owning the domain you are looking for profit fom it (sorry, I don't see a fan site for the Arches), then I could argue the arches are offered protection since it is a name of a structure and using teh domain in bad faith (IE- to profit) shows the owner knows this.

I will have to take issue with the following line:

You domain is pretty generic and used in everyday language and therefore probably not TMable.

When was the last time anyone used the terms "St Louis Arch" and NOT reference the.. well.. St Louis Arch?

For 5 bonus points, the the phrase St. Louis Arch" in a sentence and you can't refer to the St. Louis Arch.

Generic gets thrown around a little easy from a domainers prospective. Though we would want everything to be generic, that isn't the way it is.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

When was the last time anyone used the terms "St Louis Arch" and NOT reference the.. well.. St Louis Arch?

Except the true name is the "Gateway Arch" according to the national park service website which happens to be in St. Louis. Even if it were called the "St. Loius Arch", public places aren't normally trademarkable. If they were, whitehouse.com would not have existed as an adult site for years. The Golden Gate Bridge, the statue of liberty, and Niagra Falls are other examples of a public property or places without TM protection.

http://www.nps.gov/jeff/

For 5 bonus points, the the phrase St. Louis Arch" in a sentence and you can't refer to the St. Louis Arch.

As I stated above, that phrase is just descriptive. It's in St. Louis and it is an arch. It's not much different than calling Mt. Rushmore National Memorial the Mount Rushmore presidents sculpture. It is on Mt. Rushmore (a public place) and it's a sculpture of presidents. To go a step further, can you imagine using New York City in a sentence without referring to that big city on the east coast. If places were "generally" trademarkable, we wouldn't have St. Louis ribs, New York cheesecake, Chicago Pizza, Cincinnati Chili, Boston cream pie, Buffalo wings, or Philadelphia cheese Steaks. There are limited cases where geo trademarks are allowed due to special circumstances related to a product quality associated with it such as Vidalia Onions, or Idaho Potatos, but for the most part trademarks have to be for a good or service and not a place or public property.

Generic gets thrown around a little easy from a domainers prospective. Though we would want everything to be generic, that isn't the way it is.

In some ways as explained above, the term St. Louis Arch is a generic description of a public place owned by a public entity. It also relates to public names being in the public domain and not trademarkable for that reason.

 

[airwav]

Except the true name is the "Gateway Arch" according to the national park service website which happens to be in St. Louis.

AdoptableDomains wins the cupiey doll! Yep, that is correct it is the Gateway Arch, which I just realized this morning.

Thanks for all of your thoughts. Greatly appreciated.

 

[DNQuest.com]

In some ways as explained above, the term St. Louis Arch is a generic description of a public place owned by a public entity.

My point about generics is this one refers to a single unique structure and it is not generic in nature. Quite honestly, I thought it was privately owned. BTW- the definition of a TM is when a secondary meaning is attained for a word(s).

Sidenote, it is a cool place, was there when I was a kid, it was really fun. But dad prefered the Ansheiser Bucsh tour and sampling

[checking to see if gatewayarch.us is available lol]

 

[AdoptableDomains]

[checking to see if gatewayarch.us is available lol]

Looks like you're almost a year too late:
Domain Name: GATEWAYARCH.US
Domain Registration Date: Sat Jun 24 03:54:35 GMT 2006 :lol:

 

[slugraduate]

I don't think the government...

is going to WIPO you for the domain. You're ok on this one I think. In fact, every major federal agency with a .gov has the .com owned by a domainer. You are good to go.