Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.

Last updated
Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued May 4, 2020
Decided June 30, 2020
Full case nameUnited States Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v. Booking.com B. V.
Docket no. 19-46
Citations591 U.S. ___ ( more )
140 S. Ct. 2298
Case history
Prior
Holding
A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers..
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch  · Brett Kavanaugh
Case opinions
MajorityGinsburg, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh
ConcurrenceSotomayor
DissentBreyer
Laws applied
Lanham Act

Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the trademarkability of a generic terms appended with a top-level domain (TLD) specifier (in this case "Booking.com"). The Court ruled that such names can be trademarked unless the existing combination of term and TLD is considered to have a generic meaning to consumers. [1]

Contents

Background

Booking.com is an online travel agency, operating under both that name and at that domain name. The company sought to trademark its name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO had denied the application: it ruled that the term "booking" as applied the class of travel services was a generic term, and that Booking.com had not shown how their mark had gained distinctiveness. Booking.com appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which upheld that "booking" was a generic term within the class of travel services, and simply appending ".com" did not change its generic nature. [2]

Booking.com appealed the TTAB decision to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the court reversed the TTAB's decision. [3] The court found that while "booking" was a generic term related to arranging travel services, the addition of the top-level domain (TLD) of ".com", implying an online Internet commerce site, created a new concepts that was no longer generic. Further, the court agreed with evidence presented by Booking.com that the public recognized "Booking.com" as its brand through customer testimonials, including a "Teflon survey" of consumers in that market space where nearly 75% recognized "Booking.com" as a specific brand name for Booking.com's services. Additionally, the court recognized that with domain names being unique, this furthered the uniqueness of the trademark. [2]

The USPTO appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which in February 2019 upheld the District Court ruling in a 2-1 decision. [4] A key issue raised on appeal was the consideration that the components of "booking.com" ("booking" and ".com") were both considered generic, but as the Fourth Circuit upheld, their combination was recognized by consumers as a unique service due to the online domain name, rather than a broad range of online booking services, as to align with the prior decision from the Supreme Court case Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Rubber Co., whereby simply adding "Company" to the end of a product name does not uniquely identify the company. [5] The dissenting judge feared that the decision would allow larger companies that had better resources to perform "Teflon surveys" and other consumer recognition tests could win out smaller companies in trademark dispute cases simply because of the domain name addition. [6]

Supreme Court

The USPTO petitioned to the Supreme Court for review, which certified the case in November 2019. [7] The oral arguments for the case on May 4, 2020, were the first ever to be held via teleconference for the Supreme Court as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the arguments, the Justices raised questions of how an Internet address trademark different from a street address or phone number trademark which are similarly unique and have been granted, as well as the impact if they reversed on how many trademarks would be invalidated. [8]

The Court issued its ruling on June 30, 2020. The 8–1 decision affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision, holding that "a term styled 'generic.com' is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority, joined by all but Justice Stephen Breyer. The majority's decision emphasized the importance of the Lanham Act and consumer perception, as well as the uniqueness of domain names. Ginsburg wrote "According to the PTO, adding '.com' to a generic term—like adding 'Company'—can convey no source-identifying meaning. That premise is faulty, for only one entity can occupy a particular Internet domain name at a time, so a 'generic.com' term could convey to consumers an association with a particular website. Moreover, an unyielding legal rule that entirely disregards consumer perception is incompatible with a bedrock principle of the Lanham Act: The generic (or nongeneric) character of a particular term depends on its meaning to consumers, i.e., do consumers in fact perceive the term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class." [9] Ginsburg concluded from this "We have no cause to deny Booking.com the same benefits Congress accorded other marks qualifying as nongeneric." [10]

In his dissent, Breyer wrote "By making such terms eligible for trademark protection, I fear that today's decision will lead to a proliferation of 'generic.com' marks, granting their owners a monopoly over a zone of useful, easy-to-remember domains." [10]

Related Research Articles

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

Domain name speculation is the practice of identifying and registering or acquiring Internet domain names as an investment with the intent of selling them later for a profit.

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is a body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responsible for hearing and deciding certain kinds of cases involving trademarks. These include appeals from decisions by USPTO Examiners denying registration of marks, and opposition proceedings filed against trademark applications. TTAB panels hear hundreds of claims each year asserting that trademarks should not be registered because they are generic, disparaging, or confusingly similar to existing marks. Such challenges to registration are initially considered by trademark examining attorneys, whose judgment may be appealed to the TTAB. Decisions of the TTAB may, in turn, be appealed to a United States district court, or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

<i>Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo</i> U.S. trademark law case

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44, is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. The Court of Appeals did not actually reach the merits of the TTAB's decision; it sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of a procedural issue.

Disparagement, in United States trademark law, was a statutory cause of action that permits a party to petition the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to cancel a trademark registration that "may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute." In 2017, the Supreme Court struck down the disparagement provision as unconstitutional in Matal v. Tam.

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) was an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decided issues of patentability. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was replaced with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective September 16, 2012.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Concurrent use registration

A concurrent use registration, in United States trademark law, is a federal trademark registration of the same trademark to two or more unrelated parties, with each party having a registration limited to a distinct geographic area. Such a registration is achieved by filing a concurrent use application and then prevailing in a concurrent use proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), which is a judicial body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). A concurrent use application may be filed with respect to a trademark which is already registered or otherwise in use by another party, but may be allowed to go forward based on the assertion that the existing use can co-exist with the new registration without causing consumer confusion.

<i>Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America</i>

Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 3:03-cv-04057, was a case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Wrenn asked for the cancellation of federal trademark registrations of the Boy Scouts of America.

Trademark distinctiveness is an important concept in the law governing trademarks and service marks. A trademark may be eligible for registration, or registrable, if it performs the essential trademark function, and has distinctive character. Registrability can be understood as a continuum, with "inherently distinctive" marks at one end, "generic" and "descriptive" marks with no distinctive character at the other end, and "suggestive" and "arbitrary" marks lying between these two points. "Descriptive" marks must acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning—consumers have come to recognize the mark as a source indicator—to be protectable. "Generic" terms are used to refer to the product or service itself and cannot be used as trademarks.

Trademark Trade identifier of products or services

A trademark is a type of intellectual property consisting of a recognizable sign, design, or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others, although trademarks used to identify services are usually called service marks. The trademark owner can be an individual, business organization, or any legal entity. A trademark may be located on a package, a label, a voucher, or on the product itself. For the sake of corporate identity, trademarks are often displayed on company buildings. It is legally recognized as a type of intellectual property.

Booking.com

Booking.com is a Dutch online travel agency for lodging reservations and a subsidiary of Booking Holdings. It is headquartered in Amsterdam.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. It was formed on September 16, 2012 as one part of the America Invents Act. Prior to its formation, the main judicial body in the USPTO was the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).

Amanda Blackhorse is a social worker and member of the Navajo people who is known for her work as an activist on the Washington Redskins name controversy. She is the lead plaintiff in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc.

The Washington Redskins trademark dispute was a legal effort by Native Americans to define the term "redskin" to be an offensive and disparaging racial slur to prevent the owners of the Washington Redskins football team from being able to maintain federal trademark protection for this name. These efforts have primarily been carried forward in two cases brought before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While prevailing in the most recent case in which the trademarks were cancelled, petitioners have withdrawn for further litigation now that the legal issue has become moot due to a decision in another case which found the relevant portion of the trademark law to be an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.

<i>Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.</i>

Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which ruled that when software merely acts as a "conduit" for providing services over the internet, and does not have an independent value per se, it does not constitute a "good" being "sold or transported in commerce" for the purposes of establishing whether or not a trademark for "computer software" has been "abandoned" under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and 15 U.S.C. § 1127

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a United States Supreme Court case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. The Court ruled 6–3, deciding that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional, as it permits the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, violating the freedom of speech clause in the First Amendment.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

References

  1. ↑ Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.,No. 19-46 , 591 U.S. ___(2020)
  2. 1 2 Markin, Gene (January 18, 2019). "Using Top-Level Domains to Overcome the Generic Trademark Bar". The National Law Review . Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  3. ↑ Booking.com B. V. v. Matal, 278F. Supp. 3d891 ( E.D. Va. 2017).
  4. ↑ Booking.com B. V. v. Patent and Trademark Office, 915F.3d171 ( 4th Cir. 2019).
  5. ↑ Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598 (1888).
  6. ↑ Kutner, Brad (February 5, 2019). "4th Circuit Backs Trademark Protection for Booking.com". Courthouse News . Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  7. ↑ Ryan, Tim (November 8, 2019). "Booking.com Trademark Case Taken Up by High Court". Courthouse News . Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  8. ↑ Brittain, Blake (May 4, 2020). "Justices Talk Monopolies, Generic Marks in Booking.com Case". Bloomberg News . Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  9. ↑ McDermott, Eileen (June 30, 2020). "The Consumer is King: High Court Sides with Booking.com, Rejecting Per Se Test for Generic.Com Trademarks". IP Watchdog . Retrieved June 30, 2020.
  10. 1 2 Ehrlich, Jamie (June 30, 2020). "Supreme Court sides with Booking.com in key trademark case". CNN . Retrieved June 30, 2020.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.