- Impact
- 972
According to dutch newsletter of the .nl-registry (=SIDN), a US court decided the following, about "booking.com" (including .com) as Trademark :
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
What the exact consequences are for the internetcommunity, don't exactly know yet, but I write this here hoping some people of the Netherlands or the Northern of Belgium or Suriname and some islands like Curaçao (where people speak dutch "Nederlands")) , and also have the SIDN -newsletter ( nl.registry) could translate the remarks about this decision and what consequences it has.
ANYHOW : Here the googletranslation in english about that decision and the consequences according the writer or the aticle in the newsletter of SIDN (nl.-registry) :
Booking.com recognized as a US trade name
Important verdict in lingering case
Published on: Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Booking.com may register the name Booking.com in the US as a trademark. The US Supreme Court recently decided that in a case between the Dutch booking site and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Supreme Court ruled that a generic term in combination with a domain name extension can be a trade name, because in the domain name system, only one party can own a domain name at a time. Internet extension is inextricably linked
The dispute affects many large online companies, because in the eyes of many consumers the combination of a generic word with a certain internet extension is often inextricably linked to a specific company. Think for example of Bol.com or Nu.nl. But when is there a trade name in such a case? The ruling on Booking.com certainly provides more clarity for the situation in the US.
Long-term dispute The dispute has been running since 2016. Earlier this year, I also wrote about it. The booking site wanted to file the trade name, but the USPTO declined. The booking site went to court, presenting a survey that found 75% of US internet users associated Booking.com with a specific company. In the case, the USPTO referred to the rules that apply to designations of legal persons. The addition of a legal form to a word that lacks distinctive character does not make that word distinctive. So: if Amazon is not a brand, Amazon Inc. is neither. Domain name is by definition unique The Supreme Court followed Booking.com's reasoning, partly because a domain name, by contrast to the addition of a legal entity, is by definition unique. After all, there can only be 1 organization Booking.com, while several 'Johnson Incs' are theoretically possible. It would be different if consumers associate the domain name with a generic category of domain names.
Scope of protection limited
What does Booking.com win with this? The company can now take better action against using the exact name elsewhere, but no more than that. The word booking remains very generic and it is unlikely that similar brands like ebooking.com will have to surrender their domain now. The term booking without .com may also still be used freely.
(BTW : SIDN also anounced that the extention .nl reached it's 6 millionth registerred domainname).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
What the exact consequences are for the internetcommunity, don't exactly know yet, but I write this here hoping some people of the Netherlands or the Northern of Belgium or Suriname and some islands like Curaçao (where people speak dutch "Nederlands")) , and also have the SIDN -newsletter ( nl.registry) could translate the remarks about this decision and what consequences it has.
ANYHOW : Here the googletranslation in english about that decision and the consequences according the writer or the aticle in the newsletter of SIDN (nl.-registry) :
Booking.com recognized as a US trade name
Important verdict in lingering case
Published on: Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Booking.com may register the name Booking.com in the US as a trademark. The US Supreme Court recently decided that in a case between the Dutch booking site and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The Supreme Court ruled that a generic term in combination with a domain name extension can be a trade name, because in the domain name system, only one party can own a domain name at a time. Internet extension is inextricably linked
The dispute affects many large online companies, because in the eyes of many consumers the combination of a generic word with a certain internet extension is often inextricably linked to a specific company. Think for example of Bol.com or Nu.nl. But when is there a trade name in such a case? The ruling on Booking.com certainly provides more clarity for the situation in the US.
Long-term dispute The dispute has been running since 2016. Earlier this year, I also wrote about it. The booking site wanted to file the trade name, but the USPTO declined. The booking site went to court, presenting a survey that found 75% of US internet users associated Booking.com with a specific company. In the case, the USPTO referred to the rules that apply to designations of legal persons. The addition of a legal form to a word that lacks distinctive character does not make that word distinctive. So: if Amazon is not a brand, Amazon Inc. is neither. Domain name is by definition unique The Supreme Court followed Booking.com's reasoning, partly because a domain name, by contrast to the addition of a legal entity, is by definition unique. After all, there can only be 1 organization Booking.com, while several 'Johnson Incs' are theoretically possible. It would be different if consumers associate the domain name with a generic category of domain names.
Scope of protection limited
What does Booking.com win with this? The company can now take better action against using the exact name elsewhere, but no more than that. The word booking remains very generic and it is unlikely that similar brands like ebooking.com will have to surrender their domain now. The term booking without .com may also still be used freely.
(BTW : SIDN also anounced that the extention .nl reached it's 6 millionth registerred domainname).
Last edited:
