Poloshirts

[beatz]

Ok,

so as a few members seem to believe my brandnew, NW-ed PoloShirts.net with more than 10000 searches a month for the term and that is for sale btw has TM problems i'd like to ask the honored lawyer members here on their opinion.

In my point of view the term "polo shirt" is highly generic, it's a term for a certain type of shirt that for instance in comparison to t-shirts has a different cut.

So as said somewhere else before, just because it contains the word "Polo" which of course is TM-ed doesn't automatically mean a generic term that has "polo" in it is confusing similar to the Polo brand, right?

After all, there is a sport called polo that has been there long before the TM "Polo", also if "Poloshirts" is a violation of the Polo TM then i guess nobody would be allowed to reg or use the domain Appletree.com due to the Apple TM ?

My guess is, besides Poloshirt being a generic term that it all depends on the use of the domain like if i'd put up a page that looks similar confusing to Polo's one and if i'd try to sell Polo's own TM products then i might have a problem but as long as i stick to selling shirts or PPC it related to shirts, i should be ok, right?

Any opinions are appreciated

 

[jberryhill]

PRL is rabid about the word "polo", and they continue to lose UDRP disputes based on the idiotic form complaint that they have. They have gone after a guy named Polo, the US Polo Association, and a British tack shop, because they do not seem to understand that the word "polo" existed long before they appropriated it as an ersatz mark of class.

 

[beatz]

Thanks for your input, John;

myself i'm not worried too much anyway just some members were like "wow BIG TM problem here" when in fact "Poloshirts" is a generic term whos origin is connected to the polo sports and has nothing to do with the products PRL is selling.

Poloshirts have been there before PRL even existed.

 

[dtobias]

However, since "polo shirts" are an article of clothing, which is the segment in which the trademark is used, a defense of this domain will be more difficult than some of the other cases where the name was being used in non-clothing-related areas. You may need to supply documentation proving the generic use of the term preceding the trademark. Don't depend on a judge or UDRP panelist knowing the history of polo and polo shirts without your convincingly demonstrating it.

 

[centerpoint]

Just my 2 cents but this is what the "Merriam-Webster Dictionary " says

Main Entry: polo shirt
Function: noun
Date: 1920
: a close-fitting pullover often knit shirt with short or long sleeves and turnover collar or banded neck

In my opinion it's a very generic term. I would bet the term has been around longer than the TM

 

[jberryhill]

Originally posted by beatz
Thanks for your input, John;

myself i'm not worried too much anyway just some members were like "wow BIG TM problem here" when in fact "Poloshirts" is a generic term whos origin is connected to the polo sports and has nothing to do with the products PRL is selling.

Poloshirts have been there before PRL even existed.

It depends on what you mean by a "problem". Some people define "problem" as a losing battle, and some people define "problem" as having to fight a battle at all. My experience with PRL's lawyers is that they are very dense, and they lose a lot.

 

[jberryhill]

Steeeeeerike one:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0108.html
"Complainant has made its Polo brands world famous, in many areas of goods and services. This commercial and marketing success does not, however, give Complainant the exclusive right to all domain names employing the word polo. "


Steeeerike Two:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0250.html
The evidence suggests that the Respondent’s legal name is Polo Ung and he is known by that name. Indeed, his web site confirms that "Polo" is not just his name but it is a means by which he and his family are able to identify their activities and whereby his friends and family are able to access his wedding and other photos.
[...]
For some reason the Complainant fails to address this issue in its Complaint, other than in passing. Strangely, the Complainant also refers to the Respondent as "Ung", rather than as "Polo Ung."

Steeeeerike Three:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0361.html
The Complainant also mistakenly asserts that the Respondent does not do business under the POLO name. She has published periodicals and magazines including the word POLO since 1981 [see, paragraphs 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 above] and appears to have operated a website relating to the sport of polo under the domain name in issue since the Winter of 1998.

Steeeeerike, ummmm, Four:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/dbiz2002-00022.html
Here, the evidence of Respondent's plan to use the Domain Name in a legitimate manner consists of its president's affidavit, a detailed business plan, the current iTounament web page, and fund raising efforts. The plan is also supported by the other domain names registered by Respondent relating to sports or games of skill. Complainant has not presented evidence to show that these plans are merely a sham.

Steerike Five!

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0148.html
Complainant has failed to prove that the Respondent's domain names are being used in bad faith.

Steeeeerike Six:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0314.html
Although RLP may well have grounds for an infringement action under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, it does not yet have grounds for an action under the UDRP.

----

Now, these boneheads could not put together a sufficiently well-pleaded complaint to win a default case against someone who registered "ralphlaurensheets.com". I've seen their form complaint, and they apparently will simply keep on using it until the end of time, never realizing that they need to put in a few simple facts which support the three things they are supposed to prove. But, instead, these morons file a paper that says, "We're PRL and we've won zillions of trademark infringement actions against people selling counterfeit goods. Therefore any domain name with magic words in it belongs to us."

They are, without a doubt, some of the dumbest lawyers on the planet.

 

[beatz]

Thanks so much for these links, John - nice to have at hand just in case....