Seabass said:
Bass.pro......... looks like a potential trademark problem. Not a smart buy on that one, unless it is for bass guitars, or something similar.
The keyword is Bass, the domain is Bass
dot Pro and the trademark is the text string "Bass Pro Shops". You cannot trademark the text string "Bass Pro" for anything to do with Bass fishing because it would be descriptive and that isn't allowed.
If you go to uspto.gov and search for "ScubaPro" you will note it includes alot of scuba related products in the trademark categories but not scuba equipment because that would make it descriptive.
The same logic applies to any keyword Pro trademark. To get the trademark, you often have to add a disclaimer to the trademark application to say that no unique rights are claimed over the keyword, Scuba or Bass in the above examples.
The way companies get round this problem is by trademarking everything apart from the main keyword so it would be difficult to set up a shop called "Scuba Pro" because you would have to sell more than just Scuba equipment.
Here's Scuba Pro's trademark;
"Water Sports Equipment-Namely, Regulators, Tank Assemblies and Accessories, Harnesses, Snorkels, Masks, Fins, Spearguns and Accessories, Suits, Belts, Weights, Diving Accessories and Safety Devices."
Note the absence of the word Scuba. If trademark owners could use their mark to claim ownership of domains where the second word in the trademark text string matched the domain extension there would have been alot of UDRP claims for .com and .net because com and net are fairly comment trademarks suffixes. If anybody can find a UDRP claim along those lines, please post it here.
If there was a genuine issue with ScubaPro and Scuba.pro, I'd go and register the trademark SexCom for porn. I'd buy SexCom.com on the aftermarket, set up a porn site, then when ownership of Sex.com changed hands, I'd say my trademark predates the current owner of Sex.com and he should have known I have the mark SexCom because acquiring Sex.com. There is alot more at stake with .com than .pro and I have never seen anybody make this sort of claim.
Another way companies with generic .coms try to get some kind of protection is to trademark something related to how their site operates. For example, Coupons.com trademarked Coupons.com with the following category description
"ADVERTISING, NAMELY, PROMOTING THE GOODS AND SERVICES OF OTHERS BY PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT SAVINGS INCENTIVES OFFERED BY OTHERS VIA A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK, DESIGNING AND DISTRIBUTING ADVERTISING MATERIAL VIA A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK, AND DISTRIBUTING DISCOUNTS AND SAVINGS INCENTIVES OF OTHERS VIA A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK"
Note the disclaimer again below
NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "COUPONS.COM" APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Also, note similar trademarks for HotelCoupons.com and StoreCoupons.com. Alternative extensions have the fair use for words that are obviously generic. Scuba and Bass are as generic as you could get.
If I owned Scuba.pro or Bass.pro, I would try not to antagonise the Scubapro.com and Basspro.com owners by setting up a scuba or bass shop selling a similar range of goods to them. ScubaPro could claim they have the right to sell snorkels under the mark and you don't. I think they would lose if you had a good lawyer but why take the risk. Better to develop Scuba.pro into a scuba diving site or Bass.Pro into a site about bass fishing. Obviously, another thing you shouldn't do is email Bass Pro Shops or ScubaPro and offer the .pros for sale, that could be deemed to be bad faith.
