Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Booking.com. B v. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided February 4, 2019No. 17-2458; 17-2459Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWynn, Circuit Judge

This case addresses a problem that Booking.com chose to bring upon itself. Because trademark law does not protect generic terms, an online business, like Booking.com, has two options in choosing its domain name. On the one hand, it can choose to operate under a generic domain 1 that describes the nature of the services it offers, and thereby attract the wealth of customers who simply search the web for that service. However, in electing that benefit, the entity accepts a trade-off. It must forego the ability to exclude competitors from using close variants of its domain name. On the other…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Abercrombie & Fitch Company v. Hunting World, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
  2. Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  3. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Pizzeria Uno Corporation v. James W. Temple, Jr., D/B/A Taco UnoCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1984
  5. United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API