Booking.com overcomes generic argument in US trademark battle

The US Supreme Court has agreed with the holiday booking site’s argument that its Booking.com brand name is not a generic term.

As we previously covered, the holiday booking site Booking.com has taken its attempt to register its domain name brand name as a trademark in the US all the way to the US Supreme Court. In doing so, it has raised the debate as to whether the addition of a dot.com to the end of a generic word qualifies a brand name for registration as a trademark.

In its 30 June ruling, the US Supreme Court agreed that, in this instance, it does. The majority opinion of that Court was that a generic term with a dot.com added to it will only be seen as a generic name for a class of goods or services, if consumers believe that to be the case.

Assessing whether a dot.com mark is generic

In the opinion, Justice Ginsburg set out the following principles for assessing whether a dot.com mark is generic:

  • 1. A generic term is one that names a ‘class’ of goods or services, rather than a specific feature or exemplification of that class;
  • 2. Where the word is a compound term, when assessing distinctiveness the term’s meaning as a whole should be considered; and
  • 3. The meaning of a term is the meaning that is had to its consumers.

As consumers do not consider Booking.com to be a class of online travel reservation services in general, ‘Booking.com’ is not a generic mark therefore.

More than a website signifier

The Court also considered the argument put forward by the USPTO that adding dot.com to a generic term simply served to signify that the company has an online presence. However, this argument was found to be inconsistent with previous (post-Lanham Act) registrations, such as Art.com for an online retailer offering art supplies and Dating.com for the online dating site. If Booking.com were not successful then this would lead to cancellation actions for those earlier marks.

The voice of dissent

In his dissenting judgement, Justice Beyer disagreed with the majority ruling, finding that the mark still held generic value, prevents competitors from using a term that is otherwise generic to their industry, and does not meet the requirement for a trademark to be distinctive. In his opinion, the “courts must determine whether the combination of generic terms conveys some distinctive, source-identifying meaning that each term, individually, lacks”. In other words, if the meaning of the term as a whole is no greater than the individual parts, the compound itself is generic too.

Finally, Beyer J also agreed with the principles raised in the earlier Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove v Rubber Co ruling, and relied on by the USPTO in its arguments, that adding a designation to a generic term does not “magically transform a generic name for a product or service into a trademark”. However, this case related to the addition of the word ‘company’ to a generic term, rather than the addition of a dot.com, which the majority held to be more of a unique identifier.

A fair decision

The Supreme Court decision appears fair given Booking.com’s longstanding use and establishment within the market, not to mention the allowance for similar marks in the past. The case now presents an interesting precedent in the US, although the outcome may well have been different had the applicant not been so established in the market and known to consumers.

For specific guidance on filing trademarks to protect domain names or for any other trademark queries, please speak to your Novagraaf attorney or contact us below. You can also find out more about the approach to dot.com and generic marks in Europe in our earlier article 'Booking.com: Does a dot.com make a brand name distinctive?'.

Megan Taylor is a Trademark Administrator based in Novagraaf’s London office.

Laatste inzichten

Hot topics

Rebranding van generieke geneesmiddelen door parallelimporteurs: wanneer is dat toegestaan ?

Het recht om een geneesmiddel uit het ene EU-land te exporteren en in een ander EU-land in te voeren zonder uitdrukkelijke toestemming van de merkhouder is toegestaan op grond van  het EU-beginsel van het vrije verkeer van goederen. De regel geldt voor zowel generieke als originele merkgeneesmiddelen mits aan de specifieke nationale en EU-voorwaarden voor parallelimport van geneesmiddelen wordt voldaan. 

Door Novagraaf Team,
Rebranding van generieke geneesmiddelen door parallelimporteurs: wanneer is dat toegestaan ?
Nieuws en opinie

Registratie van een niet-conventioneel merk of vormmerk: een somber vooruitzicht voor de Louboutins van de toekomst?

Niet-conventionele merken zijn merken die een vorm, kleur, geur of geluid beschermen. Ondanks dat ze maar een klein deel uitmaken van alle merken in het register, zijn ze een populair en innovatief middel voor bedrijven om hun producten of diensten te onderscheiden.

Door Novagraaf Team,
Registratie van een niet-conventioneel merk of vormmerk: een somber vooruitzicht voor de Louboutins van de toekomst?
Nieuws en opinie

Aftellen naar INTA 2023: brand protection gaat niet alleen over merken

De jaarlijkse bijeenkomst van de International Trademark Association (INTA) vindt dit jaar plaats in Singapore (16-20 mei) en belooft een boeiende conferentie te worden. De sessies die voor  de conferentie zijn gepland, benadrukken dat merkenrechten niet de enige rechten zijn waarmee rekening moet worden gehouden als het gaat om brand protection.

Door Luke Portnow,
Aftellen naar INTA 2023: brand protection gaat niet alleen over merken

Voor meer informatie neem gerust contact met ons op.

Cookie policy

Om de bezoekers van de website de best mogelijke ervaring te bieden, maakt Novagraaf gebruik van cookies. Door op "Accepteren" te klikken of door de site verder te gebruiken, gaat u akkoord met ons privacybeleid, inclusief ons cookiebeleid.