An astoundingly bad piece of advice as usual.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item38
3.8 Can bad faith be found where a domain name was registered before the complainant acquired trademark rights?
3.8.1 Domain names registered before a complainant accrues trademark rights
Subject to scenarios described in
3.8.2 below, where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent. (This would not however impact a panel’s assessment of a complainant’s standing under the first UDRP element.)
[See also section
1.1.3.]
Merely because a domain name is initially created by a registrant other than the respondent before a complainant’s trademark rights accrue does not however mean that a UDRP respondent cannot be found to have registered the domain name in bad faith. Irrespective of the original creation date, if a respondent acquires a domain name after the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, the panel will look to the circumstances at the date the UDRP respondent itself acquired the domain name.
---------
It would be nice if there were not people who insist on giving dangerously bad advice on internet forums, which is what
@xynames was driving at.
Trademark disputes are what lawyers call "fact intensive". Not all trademarks are entitled to the same scope of what might or might not be considered confusingly similar, and it takes a relatively decent amount of experience and specialized expertise to provide reliable answers.
Contrary to what someone said above, I don't provide advice online and neither should any lawyer.
When you consult with a lawyer, among other things you are entitled to confidentiality in that advice. The confidentiality of that advice is one of the things that lawyers are required to protect. So it is instant malpractice for a lawyer to provide you with legal advice on a public message board.
Furthermore, while hypotheticals are fun to kick around, my long experience with people who don't know the law but who do post hypotheticals is that they often fail to construct a hypothetical which accurately reflects the circumstances. And, again, due to the fact intensive nature of trademark problems generally, that is hard to do.
In a situation like "ACME BEER AND WINE", let's suppose they have a registered mark, and let's suppose they engage in the sale of beer and wine. In all probability, they have likely disclaimed the terms "BEER AND WINE" from the registered mark in the first place, such that "ACME" is the primary distinguishing feature of the mark in the marketplace of beer and wine vendors. Hence "ACME BEER", "ACME WINE" or "ACME BEER WINE SODA AND CHIPS" are not going to be considered to be a dime's worth of difference.
But whatever you do, please, do not take anything
@Avtar629 says seriously, on the subject of trademark/domain name disputes. I'm sure he's a fine person, but the things he says on legal topics are nearly 100% wrong nearly 100% of the time.