Trademark / Patent Question.

[tekz999]

1) Can anyone actually patent/trademark a 2 or 3 letters?
e.g. hc.com? xoz.com?

2) Can anyone actually patent/trademark a 2 or 3 letters dictionary word?
e.g. hi.com? dog.com?

:huh:

 

[options]

Since nobody answers, let me give my opinion on this.

1) To the best of my knowledge, you cannot patent or even copyright a word.
A patent is a property right for an invention, while "A trademark is a word, name, symbol or device which is used in trade with goods to indicate the source of the goods and to distinguish them from the goods of others. A servicemark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. The terms "trademark" and "mark" are commonly used to refer to both trademarks and servicemarks."

No problems with two letters trademarks. See:
http://www.cepani.be/dec4014.pdf

2)AFAIK, as far as you don't infringe in someone else's industry under the same TM-ed name, yes.

 

[tekz999]

Excellent! Very Informative pdf.
A+

 

[jberryhill]

Have you ever heard of IBM ?

VW ?

AT&T ?

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

1. Yes, as JB alluded, you can trademark short words, or even acronyms. Trademarks are to describe the source of good or services. Trademarks apply to business names or brands. Normally you have to be in a new field of use from anyone else with that mark. You also need to actually be using the mark, or have an intention to use it shortly

2. Patents generally refer to inventions, functional devices, or novel business methods. To qualify for a patent, your device needs to be:

a. New
b. Useful
c. Non-obvious

Those are the basic criteria.

You can't lie about who invented it, or withhold known information about previous related inventions.

Learn more here==>

http://www.uspto.gov

I am not an attorney and this is not legal advice.

 

[tekz999]

Then how can I make sure the acronym/2 letter domain that I bought is not trademarked anywhere in the world??

 

[DeCal]

McDonalds Traded Marked "I'm Lovin It" and Passion-Online have Trade Marked "Passion".

I heard on the radio the other day that a guy Trade Marked "Your Sacked" and actually sued his boss when he fired him.... A Strange one that.... :-/

 

[namedropper]

Then how can I make sure the acronym/2 letter domain that I bought is not trademarked anywhere in the world??

Odds are good that those two letters have been trademarked for all sorts of things already. As long as you aren't infringing upon one of them (using the same two letters in the same way that some other company uses them in the same field and geographic area), you should have nothing to worry about.

 

[adoptabledomains]

Lots of trademarks on seemingly common names and acronyms are not on the letters themselves, but stylized logos of the letters. McDonalds doesn't have a trademark on the letter M, but on a particular yellow double arched version of the letter. You really need to read the trademark application and approval to see what it's protecting.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Then how can I make sure the acronym/2 letter domain that I bought is not trademarked anywhere in the world??
++++++++++++

Start here==>

http://tess.uspto.gov

 

[options]

As long as you aren't infringing upon one of them (using the same two letters in the same way that some other company uses them in the same field and geographic area), you should have nothing to worry about.

Now, not to fast. This is the core of the problem.
The domainer is almost sure to lose the first two elements of the UDRP:

(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name;

The trickiest part is proving the third one:

(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

As seen in many cases, the 'bad faith' decision totaly depends on wheather conditions, mood of the panelist(s) and sometimes their interests ($$$).

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Many domainers also stumble on ii.

 

[jberryhill]

"Then how can I make sure the acronym/2 letter domain that I bought is not trademarked anywhere in the world??"

The more appropriate question is *why* would you want to make sure of that?

In another thread here, someone is looking for a "consistent" rule on acronymic domain names. There can't be a one-size-fits-all rule, because not all trademarks are created equal, and the assumptions one might make about a registrant in one place are not the same assumptions you would make about a registrant elsewhere.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0527.html

-----------------------------------
The Panel considers, on balance, that the Complainant has not proved the registration of the domain name in bad faith. The name was registered as one of a list of generic names, some being combinations of 2 letters or 3 letters. The Complainant’s mark is not one known worldwide as, for example, the letters "BP". From the evidence, the mark "VZ" is well known only in Switzerland and to some extent in Germany and has been registered only in Switzerland. There are two inferences to be drawn from the domain name registration. Either:

the Respondent, as a "wholesaler" of catchy names for domain sites, registered "vz", along with other 2 or 3 letter combinations in the hope of being able to sell the combination of letters to someone wanting a catchy logo or easily-remembered mode of recognition by the public; or

the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s logo and registered the domain name "vz.com" with the aim of negotiating a sale to the Complainant at a later date.

There is no evidence to support the latter inference. Accordingly, the Panel must fall back on the onus of proof which remains throughout on the Complainant.
------------------

Now, here's the point to consider. IF the Respondent had been Swiss, and therefore might have had reason to know that VZ is a well-known trademark there, then the result of this case might have been different.

 

[namedropper]

Now, not to fast. This is the core of the problem.
The domainer is almost sure to lose the first two elements of the UDRP

Not if they come up with a legitimate reason for them to have it. The value of the names on the market alone could be considered a legitimate interest.

But, yes, most disputes hinge on the third element... You point out that sometimes the panelists make bad decisions on that, well, yeah, they could make bad decisions on that for any name in existence, two or three characters or not. The way you get around that is act in good faith, display a legit reason for having the name, and don't act in anyway like you are trying to rip anyone off.

No matter what you do you are not immune to some panelist making some dumbass decision. That's why you get experienced legal advice if anyone ever threatens you with UDRP, why you have someone who knows what they are doing write up your response, why you often want more than one panelist, and so forth.

Same thing goes for any legal situation. You can be sued for anything. Trying to protect yourself from any potential of ever being sued is a waste of time, because there is always the nuisance lawsuit, and the potential for a bad decision by a judge. The only thing you can do is act in good faith all the time and be prepared to have someone who knows what they are doing respond should anyone make up some silly complaint.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

namedropper wrote:

The value of the names on the market alone could be considered a legitimate interest.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

No.

"Legitimate interest" means you have been known by that name since birth, you have a local business named it, you have a web business named it, you have a corporation known by it, you are an authorized distributor for the TM holder, etc..

 

[namedropper]

namedropper wrote:

The value of the names on the market alone could be considered a legitimate interest.
++++++++++++++++++++++++

No.

I've seen UDRP cases where they made the argument that it was and held onto the name. Certainly the other things are more likely to be accepted by panelists who hate resellers, but not all of them do.

 

[options]

Not if they come up with a legitimate reason for them to have it. The value of the names on the market alone could be considered a legitimate interest.

Bingo!
It should be, but the rights on registered names and the possible market value of such rights are not considered a legitimate interest.
Furthermore, the almost exclusive reason one can prove 'bad faith' is 'stealing traffic' from TM holder.
However, we've been witnessing more and more cases where domains, not put into commercial or any other activity become transfered to complainants based on 'bad faith' element.

 

[options]

I've seen UDRP cases where they made the argument that it was and held onto the name.

From one of the decisions:

"The Panel herewith concludes that the Complainant has failed to prove that

- the Respondent registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant or a competitor for a valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name, as nothing of that kind has been discussed between the parties."

Also:

"None of the circumstances that might illustrate registration or use in bad faith under Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are alleged or proved. It is clear that Respondent has no intention of selling <AJC.BIZ>. "

Thus all per paragraph 4b (i), which could be applied at wish in any TM case.