If You Have A Generic Domain Name, Don't Expect Trademark Protection On It

from the but-does-that-matter? dept

I remember, when first learning about trademark law, thinking how bizarre it was that having your name be considered "generic" was a bad thing. After all, when your brand became synonymous with the product you were selling (think Kleenex, Xerox, Band-Aid etc.) it meant that you had really dominated the product category. Except... if you're a lawyer. Because the fear, of course, is that if your brand becomes generic, you lose the trademark, and then suddenly others can make use of that brand that you worked so hard to build up. I'm still not convinced that's really a problem if you're a savvy business person, but it's the way things are.

However, as something of "natural" proof of this, just look at how much of a gold rush there was in the early dot com era for "generic" dot com domain names. Everyone involved in those businesses just knew why this was important. They believed that by having those key generic terms, "books.com," "pets.com," and even "sex.com" that you would be one of the first places people would go, even if they didn't know who you, as a company, were. Of course, it actually didn't turn out that way for many players who ended up with those domains. A lot of the early companies who had "great" domains faded pretty quickly. Execution matters more than just a good name.

And, of course, this whole generic business really gets in the way of that backwards trademark view, where having your name be generic is "bad." For example, in a recent lawsuit, AOL learned that its advertising.com domain name isn't really valid as a trademark because of its generic nature. In fact, the court notes that if people are asked about a company, it's perfectly reasonable to describe it as "an advertising dot com." I also like how the court smacked down AOL's claim that without getting a trademark on advertising.com it would take business away from the company:
this is the peril of attempting to build a brand around a generic term.
Exactly. If you want the advantages of building around a generic term, you also have to realize there are some trade-offs, and one is that you don't get to trademark it. However, as we noted when a similar ruling came down last year against hotels.com, it's not clear how much this really matters. It only matters if you overvalue the trademark. The domain itself is still unique and the brand is still unique. So does the trademark really even matter?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    MrWilson, Aug 10th, 2010 @ 9:45pm

    I'm still waiting for someone to explain why trademark infringement is such an issue unless your product has all the effectiveness and uniqueness of a placebo.

    If you make a better product, consumers will recognize that and buy it. Why does it matter if someone with a clearly inferior product calls theirs kleenex too. They can't perfectly duplicate the product and they can't perfectly duplicate the packaging.

    You are only saved by your quality and innovation.

    Then again, maybe I answered my own question. No one wants to innovate. Innovation is something you pay the marketing team for.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Red Monkey (profile), Aug 11th, 2010 @ 3:04am

      Re:

      " Why does it matter if someone with a clearly inferior product calls theirs kleenex too?"

      It matters because after awhile, people start thinking anything labelled "kleenex" is inferior. When they see your superior kleenex, they think "ugh, I remember last time I blew my nose with that stuff...".

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 8:15am

        Re: Re:

        It matters because after awhile, people start thinking anything labelled "kleenex" is superior. When they see your inferior kleenex, they think "wow, I remember last time I blew my nose with that stuff...".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 12:19am

    I think trademark infringement is supposed to protect from blatant ripoffs. Such as if your knockoff tissues used the kleenex logo on it. This actually sounds like a useful legal setup. Of course, lawyers arent satisfied until they have reduced the law to absurdity, in this case the doctrine of genericalized trademarks which nobody even has a problem with until they are brainwashed otherwise.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    dnball (profile), Aug 11th, 2010 @ 1:38am

    Generic terms

    You're conflating two issues:

    [1] The inherent right of all marketplace participants to promote their product or service by calling it what it is [i.e., by naming it using words in their dictionary, "generic" sense]. Trademark law cannot permit, for example, one apple farmer to own the exclusive right to use the word "Apple" when promoting the sale of his apples because that would inhibit the sale of apples by other apple farmers.

    [2] The public's interest in efficient communication through its use of words or terms previously used as trademarks but which are no longer trademarks because the trademark owner PERMITTED its competitors to use the same word or term to brand their version of the product. This is "genericide."

    The former trademark owner may have expressly abandoned its mark or may have lost its exclusive rights in its mark through very poor enforcement efforts. Either way, if lots of folks selling the same product call the product by the same name then the law assumes the public may as well and so the word or term joins our society's luxurious lexicon.

    A mark does NOT become generic merely because the public uses the mark as the generic name for the thing. The public nearly universally asks for a KLEENEX rather than a facial tissue -- which pleases Kimberly-Clark to no end and who can, nonetheless, still enforce its KLEENEX trademark against all other folks who sell facial tissue.

    A mark only becomes generic if the mark owner allows competitors to brand their version of the product using the same mark.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Red Monkey (profile), Aug 11th, 2010 @ 3:08am

    why trademark matters

    "The domain itself is still unique and the brand is still unique. So does the trademark really even matter?"

    A trademark would matter. If you had one one "advertising.com", you could block a confusingly similar mark like "advertise.com".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Christopher Meatto (profile), Aug 11th, 2010 @ 6:32am

    all about knocking competitors out of search engine

    First, I think it shocked most attorneys that the trial court held in favor of Advertising.com. For me, close to an embarassment for the legal profession.

    The real fight is to get rid of competitor names that would tend to rank high on a Google search.

    The legal rhetoric is confusion, but the game is SEO.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Andrew Rosener, Aug 11th, 2010 @ 4:48pm

    Generic Domain Names - Still Reign King

    Pretty much ALL of the people who got in early with generic keyword domains made a killing unless they got out too early. If you look at any example of a "category killer" domain name which is developed into a business today, it is a major player for that industry. Those generic domain names continue to increase in value perpetually. We just sold Pizza.net - it represents of the top 5 .NET sales of all time. Insurance.com just sold for $36 Million. A single word generic domain name is the most powerful tool you can have on the internet. Trust me, I own thousands of them! You can see examples on our site at: http://www.mediaoptions.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Caitlin - BrandBucket, Aug 26th, 2010 @ 11:07am

    Great examples! I never thought of that Band-Aid brand -- they are bandages, that is just the brand name.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ken, Feb 1st, 2014 @ 1:49pm

    Let's say there is a trademark for "isee". Can someone register isee.com but use it as "I see"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This