Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Why Not Put a Bow on Genericness?

By Steve Baird® on December 17, 2019
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

‘Tis the season for gratitude and thankfulness, and avoiding conflict and fruitcake.

From a trademark perspective, every season is for avoiding genericness, right?

After all, generic designations are part of the public domain, they aren’t own-able.

So, why is Guaranteed Rate continuing to invest in Rate.com, found to be generic?

Perhaps because, for an online business, a generic domain name is quite valuable.

Beyond that, Hotels.com‘s persistence yielded 3 registrations (here, here, and here), despite losing a genericness appeal in 2009, so maybe Guaranteed Rate has Hotels.com-like optimism for a possible chance to prove acquired distinctiveness.

And, while it is true that the deck is pretty stacked against federal registration of claimed marks like Rate.com, it is also presently true that:

“[T]here is no per se rule that the addition of a non-source-identifying gTLD to an otherwise generic term can never under any circumstances operate to create a registrable mark. The [Federal Circuit] has held that in rare, exceptional circumstances, a term that is not distinctive by itself may acquire some additional meaning from the addition of a gTLD such as ‘.com’ or ‘.net’ that will render it ‘sufficiently distinctive for trademark registration.'”

In the coming year, we’ll have an opportunity to see whether that remains true.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this question in the Booking.com case:

“Whether, when the Lanham Act states generic terms may not be registered as trademarks, the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (‘.com’) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.”

Interestingly, the very nature of a domain, as an online address, makes it singular.

And, it is important to keep in mind that a trademark not only identifies goods and distinguishes them from those of others, it also points to a singular source.

So, perhaps generic dot com brands should be considered at least capable.

The legal test ought to focus on consumer perceptions about distinctiveness.

Trademark types, will the Court permit generic dot coms to serve as marks?

Marketing types, when do you value domain names that can’t be trademarks?

And, when does putting a bow on genericness make business sense to you?

Photo of Steve Baird® Steve Baird®

View my professional biography

Just so you know, I’m all about brands and the law, both professionally and personally. I regularly annoy family and friends in retail stores by focusing on product labels—not to buy the product, but to read the fine print…

View my professional biography

Just so you know, I’m all about brands and the law, both professionally and personally. I regularly annoy family and friends in retail stores by focusing on product labels—not to buy the product, but to read the fine print and ask, “Who owns these brands” and “Did they really register those marks?” To understand the depth of my passion for brands and helping clients achieve their business goals, legally, you must understand that my interest in business and branding goes back to the late 1960s. The very first brand I recall profiting from was Jiffy®. Even before being old enough to deliver papers for the Iowa City Press Citizen, between episodes of Bewitched®, I would bake cupcakes and walk my finished product door-to-door, sampling along the way, of course, throughout our Kimball Road neighborhood, mostly selling them to husbands whose wives didn’t bake enough (probably watching Bewitched®), according to them at least. One hundred percent profit margins are easy when you can use the necessary equipment and raw materials directly from Mom’s kitchen. Mass producing “hot pads” (pot holders, not real estate) and selling them door-to-door was another favorite childhood business venture at the ripe age of six. Graduating to lawn-mowing age worked well with my paper routes because I could easily see who needed help cutting their grass and, in some cases, avoiding neighborhood ridicule. Yes, you’re right, Dad loaned me his Lawn-Boy® mower on weekends, rent-free, and even bought the gasoline (Dad was not brand loyal at all with gasoline, so I have no brand memory there). Another pure profit opportunity. Let’s just say that Mom and Dad were generous, unsecured investors in my development and future. Thanks Mom and Dad, I now understand the meaning of overhead and capital improvements! I bucked a lot of family tradition and jokes to become a lawyer and a trademark guru. There is not one lawyer in the family tree, as far as my sister knows (and she would know). Nearly everyone is, or was, a teacher of some kind. That must be where my passion for educating others about the legal implications of branding comes from. Basically, I have been speaking about the legal implications of branding since the early 90s, after permitting my pharmacist’s license to expire (after being a victim of an armed robbery where Dilaudid® was on the top of the gunman’s list of desired controlled substances), and shortly after working for an 86 year old federal judge whose chambers had a nice view of the White House in Washington, D.C. While I’d like to say that the movie My Cousin Vinny inspired me to become a lawyer, it was released two years after I graduated from law school. So, really, I guess it just inspired me to be a better lawyer and leader. For now, you can call me a “thought-leader” in the trademark world, and the thankful leader of a very talented group of creative and insightful lawyers and staff who are dedicated to putting our intellectual property clients in the best possible position to achieve their business goals. When I’m not in the office, “cracking the whip,” making sure others in the group keep their bios on this blog short and sweet, working (which isn’t to say I’m not still thinking about my clients’ businesses), or soaking it up in the hot-tub with my soul-mate, I am a dedicated family man – a.k.a. the chauffeur. Until they reach the driving age, I’ll continue to shuttle my four wonderful kids around to their athletic and other events, at which you can find me cheering in the stands.

Email
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    DuetsBlog
  • Organization:
    Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo