Recently, Booking.com prevailed in a long battle before the US Courts over “Generic” Trademark Registration of the wordmark “Booking.com”[1] which is owned by Booking Holdings Inc. along with other parallel services under such upright tradenames, for instance, Rentalcars.com. A ‘Generic name’ is such an expression or name which on the face of it describes the line of product or service which has been transacted under such tradename and adoption of such generic names are ineligible for the purpose of registration under the trademark regimes around the world.
The primary reason behind eliminating the use of Generic names in the sphere of trademark regimes around the world is simply to restrain the applicants from reaping unjust competitive advantages due to the effect or influence such generic names makes on the consuming public.
The Booking.com managed to reserve its trademark under the US federal laws merely due to the rationale that the suffix “.com” read with the term Booking sought to draw a unique character of the mark which could be distinguishable from the other marks perceived by the consumers and such relevant consumers may be in position to carefully pick out difference due to the observation held that “when a mark incorporates generic or highly descriptive components, consumers are less likely to think that other uses of the common element emanate from the mark’s owner.”
Such grant of ineligible tradenames of generic nature falls inconsistent with the trademark principles and policy. This decision may lead to a proliferation of ‘generic.com’ marks, granting their owners a monopoly over a zone of useful, easy-to-remember domains and may serve to promote malpractice and abuse of dominance.
[1] United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. v. Booking.com B.V., 19–46 (U.S.).