Can the combination of a generic word and a generic website ending like “.com” create something distinctive enough to be trademarked? When does a large company’s attempt to reduce confusion with a smaller business’ slogan actually result in more confusion? And should a company that wins an argument with the government still have to pay Uncle Sam’s attorney fees?
Judges in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently answered those important questions for the world of trademark law, and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider some of their answers. The rulings in Booking.com v. United States Patent and Trademark Office and Fleet Feet v. Nike have significant implications for the intersection of trademark law and the internet, the competition between larger and smaller businesses, and the cost of being right.
Booking.com and Paying Back Uncle Sam
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
