The name is quite specific as to its use
One of the problems with these things is that while you are using "Homepod" as an example, that name might be applied to any number of things, since it is not directly descriptive of anything in particular. It might be a piece of furniture, a storage system, a portable shelter of some kind, and so on.
So, I can't really figure out what you mean by the name being "quite specific as to its use". If you are trying to say that the name is directly descriptive of the purpose or function of the goods/services, then it might be too descriptive to qualify as a trademark in the first place, which brings us to this common Namepros issue:
I see the HomePod announced and a trademark filed.
It's not clear what that means either. By "a trademark filed" I imagine you mean that an application for registration has been filed in some office somewhere. If it is in the US, then it would be interesting to know if it was filed on a 1(a) basis (actual use) or a 1(b) basis (intent to use). Likewise by having the product/service "announced" it's not clear whether they are actually selling the product or service or have announced they will be doing so in the future.
It's really not possible to provide a useful answer to your question absent specific facts.
In general, if you have registered a domain name prior to someone acquiring/developing trademark rights, then under the UDRP, it is not possible for the TM claimant to show that you registered the domain name in bad faith in relation to their mark.
One of the requirements of the UDRP is to prove the domain name was registered (by the Respondent) in bad faith in relation to the mark. If there was no mark at the time, then the domain name could not have been registered in bad faith. That part is simple. Also, that applies to the UDRP, and is not meant to address all possible OTHER trademark laws that might apply to whatever jurisdictions might be relevant.
HOWEVER, it is quite possible to end up with a stalemate in which the TM claimant cannot obtain the domain name under the UDRP, but the domain name is rendered pretty much useless and valueless anyway, as a consequence of the later trademark claim.
But, another aspect of your question is also one of the usual misconceptions of Namepros posters generally, so let's consider a different example.
Again, I have no idea what you mean by the domain name being "specific as to its use", but I suspect it is because we are dealing with an inherently descriptive term that
MIGHT not function as a trademark anyway.
Take the recently-announced Tesla "ROBOTAXI" for example. Yes, they recently announced a
future product, and yes, they filed some intent-to-use trademark registration applications in the United States, but that's very far away actually obtaining a trademark.
The first problem they would have is exemplified by previous attempts to register rights in "ROBOTAXI" by others.
For example, in 2019, a Robotaxi Inc. filed for registration of "ROBOTAXI" for "transport of persons" on an intent-to-use basis. That application was refused on the following basis, among other things:
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentview...=OOA20191126092747&linkId=2#docIndex=1&page=1
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
In addition to being merely descriptive, the applied-for mark appears to be generic in connection with the identified services and, therefore, incapable of functioning as a source-identifier for applicant’s services. In re The Am. Acad. of Facial Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 64 USPQ2d 1748 (TTAB 2002); In re A La Vieille Russie, Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1895 (TTAB 2001); see TMEP §§1209.01(c) et seq., 1209.02(a). Under these circumstances, neither an amendment to proceed under Trademark Act Section 2(f) nor an amendment to the Supplemental Register can be recommended. See TMEP §1209.01(c).
[...]
Applicant has applied to register the mark ROBOTAXI (in standard characters) for “Transport of persons” in International Class 39.
The attached evidence demonstrates that the term “robotaxi” is often utilized to identify self-driving vehicles, and particular those used as transport. See attached articles from GigabitMagazine.com, LeddarTech.com, Wikipedia.com, Fortune.com, and Wired.com.
As the term “robotaxi” is utilized to identify self-driving vehicles in general, and identified services could feature self-driving vehicles in the transport of the hired passengers, the term “robotaxi” merely identifies this feature of the identified services.
In sum, applicant’s mark is merely descriptive because it describes a feature of applicant’s services and consumers are likely to perceive the proposed mark as describing a feature of the services rather than the source of the services.
Accordingly, registration is refused pursuant to Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act."
The applicant in that application didn't bother to attempt to argue otherwise and the application went abandoned.
But just because someone filed something with the USPTO,
THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT A TRADEMARK.
Anybody with $300 can file any piece of shit with the USPTO.
So, continuing with the example, Tesla filed their application on an intent-to-use basis on October 10, 2024 for "ROBOTAXI" for "Land vehicles; electric vehicles, namely automobiles; automobiles; and structural parts therefor."
Obviously, it is also on an intent-to-use basis, since they aren't making any such thing, but have merely announced a plant to do so.
Just as obviously, their application is going to be refused as descriptive for the same reason.
I've mentioned before that descriptive terms CAN become distinctive marks through longstanding continuous use, such as American Airlines (which is an American airline, but everyone knows it means one such airline in particular). The problem with Tesla's application is that they are obviously not using the mark on anything in commerce yet, and won't be for some time, so they will not be able to argue that they have acquired distinctiveness through use of the mark in commerce.
But, the bottom line here is that there is no intelligent way to address your question in particular, and I doubt your "homepod" analogy is very useful if the domain name is "specific" to a particular use, which is entirely unlike "homepod". Additionally, it's not clear what you mean by having "announced" a product, in terms of whether it is a currently-available product sold under the mark or merely a wish to make something in the future.
However, I would assume that you registered the domain name out of a belief it would have some kind of utility for some kind of product or service, so I don't see how it is possible that one such announcement by some company would change that situation. Certainly, if you had the domain name prior to any such announcement or use, then it would not be possible for them to prevail in a UDRP, which would require them to have had trademark rights (or a reason to believe they would have them in the near future) at the time you registered the domain name.
