DavidPontious: First SCOTUS opinion of the day: Patent and Trademark Office v. https://t.co/eLG9v3qs4y B. V. "Held: A term styled "https://t.co/czwS6ER4wp" is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers." https://t.co/m3w1y4X6lA
wetrat: But can they trademark "Booking.yeah"?or "Booking.YoMama"
bhcompy: This seems like a common sense decision. Good to see something the bulk of the court agrees on
eKonk: My question: Let's say the company decides to no longer pay for the url. Can they use their trademark to prevent someone else from using it?
Peter Weyland: bhcompy: This seems like a common sense decision. Good to see something the bulk of the court agrees onI said this over in the other SCOTUS one, but in general SCOTUS rulings are pretty lopsided. They don't make the news as much, though.
dbirchall: The legal beagle's tweet didn't make it clear who actually won.The Fark headline did.Thanks, Fark.com™!
If you like these links, you'll love
More Farking, less working
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2020 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Oct 21 2020 18:43:16
Runtime: 0.155 sec (155 ms)