Comments on: Hotels.com Loses Appeal To TradeMark Hotels.com

By: Fabio

Fabio — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 23:04:20 +0000

Oh, I now see another question:

Let’s say I own californiahotels.com and I market hotels from California (duh)… Can I go after the guys at hotels.com, if the create a subdomain california.hotels.com? We all know its the same thing, in practical matters – except mine is the specific one.

Makes you wonder, hu?

By: Fabio

Fabio — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 22:59:13 +0000

I just hate it when I cant edit my comment for typos.

By: Fabio

Fabio — Sat, 14 Aug 2010 22:58:19 +0000

If the guy owns the domain, its ownes, what’s the point in registering it?

I bet they’d try to fuck up californiahotels.com or besthotels.com, and all tghe others *hotes.com – and that would be really unffair. In my opinion somebody owning hotels.com is by itself unfair. There are just so many arguments I could use here, I won’t even start. And that also proves how generalizing is unfair. LOL.

By: Joe Gordon

Joe Gordon — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 04:50:23 +0000

Thank god for this ruling. Of course there can only be one Hotels.com. This is not why they’ve spent large volumes of money. They have spent the money for one reason…so they could go after anyone and everyone with the hotel or hotels in or as part of their domain with udrp disputes and trademark infringement claims. Anyone who believes otherwise is on something very strong. I am someone who knows. I am the owner of a generic .net and my direct competitor in the same business who owns the corresponding.com which ranks #1 in google throughout all searches related to the industry has hired a lawyer to try to find a way to go after me. Again thank god for the hotels.com ruling. This company now knows they have no trademark case. They have tried to have phony customers call me to see if I would pass myself off as them to no avail and they still persist with even more nefarious schemes as prescibed by their hired guns. Why do they do this you ask? Because millions of dollars of venture capital is on the line if this company can create an online brand out of the generic term. All I want is to do business on the generic domain I rightlfully own. I have a branded corporation as well but the benefits to having both a brand with generics is enormous eg. Campbells Soup owning soups.com. Anyone who thinks that Hotels.com should receive a trademark is not living in the real world as this was nothing but a not so inconsipcuous attempt to eradicate competition and gain market share. Fortunately the courts saw right through this and pulled the curtains closed on them and the rug out from under them.

By: Simply adding “.com” doesn’t make the mark | erblawg

Simply adding “.com” doesn’t make the mark | erblawg — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:14:14 +0000

[...] to thedomains.com, there are some limits. A federal court recently upheld the trademark office’s denial of a [...]

By: D

Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:46:21 +0000

I think is good decision, otherwise they could UDRP domains like comfortablehotels..com, cheaphotels.com etc

By: FX

FX — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:45:21 +0000

2 cases in one day dealing with generic domains. 2 different outcomes. And a highly critical dissent from a judge. http://www.udrpsearch.com/case/1265489 Skip everything else and go all the way down the bottom to read “DISSENT OF MINORITY PANELIST DAVIS”

By: FX

FX — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 02:43:46 +0000

2 cases in one day dealing with generic domains. 2 different outcomes. And an amazing dissent from a judge. http://www.udrpsearch.com/case/1265489 Skip everything else and go all the way down the pay to read “DISSENT OF MINORITY PANELIST DAVIS”

By: MHB

MHB — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:53:38 +0000

Guys

I think that everything else in life, it depends who hears a particular case on a particular day.

By: FX

FX — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:41:21 +0000

good decision, i hope it becomes cheaper to cancel other generic Trademarks out there.