is it legal to buy chromebrowser. ---- ?

[ezguy]

i am planning to buy chromebrowser.----

once i buy it, I am in infringing on trademarks ?

 

[memmst]

If you can guess the name of google's next product and register the domain before it's announced you are safe. utube.com did it.
Good luck!

 

[Theo]

I'm not sure if Google themselves thought it out properly. Go to Chrome.com and you'll see that:

1. chrome is a registered trademark
2. it's a web based application that would qualify for the "browser" term

Will they be suing Google next?

 

[Focus]

I sure hope so..

 

[msn]

Google has been down this path before - in parts of Europe Google is not permitted to use the "Gmail" product name.

chromebrowser.xxx is perfectly okay and is descriptive of several products, one of which is a beta version non trade mark project from Google.

 

[Stian]

ChromeBrowser.xxx - the place where you can browse through hundreds of chrome rims. You should be fine as long as the domain isn't used for anything related to web browsers.

 

[marcorandazza]

i am planning to buy chromebrowser.----

once i buy it, I am in infringing on trademarks ?

Most likely, yes you are.

chromebrowser.xxx is perfectly okay and is descriptive of several products, one of which is a beta version non trade mark project from Google.

I disagree. If you had registered it before Google's browser hit every single news website, or if you registered it for some purpose unrelated to the browser's fame, you might be okay. But to say it is "perfectly okay" is oversimplifying things.

I'd say that you might have a chance of winning if Google comes after you. If it is a UDRP complaint, 3-1 odds against you winning. If it is an ACPA complaint, I'd give 5-1 odds against. Being in Florida, you're subject to the Florida trademark act, which provides for prevailing party attorney's fees.

This does not seem like the best domain to add to your portfolio.

ChromeBrowser.xxx - the place where you can browse through hundreds of chrome rims. You should be fine as long as the domain isn't used for anything related to web browsers.

True, in the UDRP context.

Not necessarily true in the ACPA context.

 

[ezguy]

chrome is not a registered trademark it is a metal right ? chromimum. how is it a registered trade mark ?

 

[marcorandazza]

Trademark rights come from use, not registration. So, lets forget about the "you need a registered trademark to win" theory -- because that is a common misunderstanding.

Google launches the Chrome Browser (or even announces that it will launch the "Chrome Browser"). Shortly thereafter, you register "chromebrowser.com". Unless you can prove that you were living under a rock in the darkest jungle in Borneo, and you happened upon a computer and decided to register it "out of the blue," then you've registered it will full knowledge of Google's rights. That is bad faith registration.

Next, bad faith use... if you do use it to "browse chrome rims" or something like that, a panel *might* believe you that you are not using it in bad faith. However, ask yourself if that would pass the smell test.

It is possible that Google won't care and won't ever come after you. They must be internet savvy enough over there that someone would have thought to register that name if they wanted it. However, they are under no obligation to defensively register.

I don't think acquiring that name is a good idea. Chromerims.com = just fine. chromebrowser.com, what else could you *reasonably* have had in mind except Google's browser? I'm not talking about coming up with a complete BS story that could *hypothetically* be true... most UDRP panelists are reasonably intelligent and will see through the BS. Federal judges? Don't even think about lying to them.

 

[msn]

Well, recently someone tried to take <adjective><noun>.<cctld> from a registrant. Not only did the registrant keep the domain, the holder of the registered trade mark saw the mark removed for being insufficiently distinctive. While not every case is the same, it is no problem to have a web site called chromebrowser.xxx as long as you respect rights. If Google has "colour of right" is another issue, but when someone offers downloads of a fully modified firefox browser which as modified includes a number of plug-ins and might even have a chrome "skin" then the purpose of the site and the URL align nicely and are descriptive of the site itself.

 

[marcorandazza]

I wouldn't say "it is no problem." In this hypothetical, I can agree that your reasoning could work.

But, if a client asked me to make that argument to a judge or a UDRP panel, I'd tell that client to get another lawyer. If I read such arguments made by another lawyer, I'd have serious doubts about their understanding of their oath of attorney.

Give it a shot though. Tell me how it works out for you.

 

[Dave Zan]

it is no problem to have a web site called chromebrowser.xxx as long as you respect rights.

Except if the mark holder feels you're not respecting your rights and can have
the law on their side, maybe. It's still their burden to demonstrate their claim,
but that might not be a problem if we're talking about Google here.

 

[msn]

Perhaps it should be pointed out that "chrome" as a project name has been used many times over the years, and I worked for a company that produced a browser, one variant being called chrome.