Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Booking.com™   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, shot  
•       •       •

1641 clicks; posted to Business » on 30 Jun 2020 at 11:03 AM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



14 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-06-30 10:03:20 AM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-06-30 10:55:41 AM  
But can they trademark "Booking.yeah"?
 
2020-06-30 11:40:05 AM  
Interesting that part of the PTO arguments was that if you have the .com you don't really need the trademark.

I've been telling clients that for a long time.
 
2020-06-30 11:47:23 AM  
 

wetrat: But can they trademark "Booking.yeah"?

or "Booking.YoMama"

 
2020-06-30 11:51:05 AM  
This seems like a common sense decision.  Good to see something the bulk of the court agrees on
 
2020-06-30 11:59:43 AM  
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?
 
2020-06-30 12:39:05 PM  
The legal beagle's tweet didn't make it clear who actually won.
The Fark headline did.
Thanks, Fark.com™!
 
2020-06-30 12:58:09 PM  

bhcompy: This seems like a common sense decision.  Good to see something the bulk of the court agrees on


I 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.
 
2020-06-30 1:00:33 PM  

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?


I think that'd be a call by WIPO, but so long as they keep paying for the registration, they own it (unless they stop using it altogether -- I think there's some WIPO rules about squatting "just because", but it's been a long time since I read up on it)
 
2020-06-30 1:11:17 PM  

Peter Weyland: bhcompy: This seems like a common sense decision.  Good to see something the bulk of the court agrees on

I 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.


The 95% of cases they don't take are almost always because they agree.

/they only deny a few because they want to procrastinate
 
2020-06-30 2:44:18 PM  
Well, guess it's time to start trademarking every apple.(word likely to become a new TLD) combination.  Let the second wave of cybersquatting commence!
 
2020-06-30 3:40:49 PM  

dbirchall: The legal beagle's tweet didn't make it clear who actually won.
The Fark headline did.
Thanks, Fark.com™!


Yeah I had google what happened and read an actual news article.

Twitter isn't always helpful
 
2020-06-30 6:01:44 PM  
booking.com®
 
2020-06-30 6:09:31 PM  
Makes sense to me.  You obviously can't trademark just "Booking", but if you can trademark something like Booking&Co. then you can obviously trademark Booking.com.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.