USPTO Issues Guidance on Generic.com Terms

Thursday, October 29, 2020

In June of this 12 months, the US Supreme Courtroom dominated {that a} proposed mark consisting of the mix of a generic time period and a generic top-level area, like “.com,” isn’t per se generic. (USPTO v. Reserving.com). In response, the USA Patent and Trademark Workplace (USPTO) just lately issued Examination Tips for analyzing such “generic.com” phrases.

This all started when the USPTO initially refused to register the proposed mark BOOKING.COM, asserting it was generic with respect to resort reservation providers or, alternatively that it was merely descriptive and had not acquired distinctiveness. The Trademark Trial and Enchantment Board affirmed the refusal, however the district and circuit courts in the end dominated in favor of the applicant. In Reserving.com the SCOTUS targeted its assessment on the query of whether or not the USPTO might make use of an almost per se rule towards trademark safety for a generic time period mixed with a top-level area (i.e., “.com”).

The Tips issued by the USPTO start with the premise that whereas Reserving.com held {that a} generic.com time period isn’t per se generic, it didn’t mechanically deem these phrases to be non-generic. In keeping with the Tips, Reserving.com didn’t alter the “genericness” evaluation or examination procedures to be utilized to generic.com phrases, and analyzing attorneys should proceed to evaluate these phrases on a case-by-case foundation. In different phrases, the analyzing lawyer is required to observe examination processes per examination procedures already in place on the USPTO.

If you’re making use of for registration of a generic.com mark on the Principal Register, needless to say to ensure that the Workplace to reject such a time period as generic, the analyzing lawyer is required present that “the related shoppers would perceive the first significance of the time period, as a complete, to be the identify of the category or class of the products and/or providers recognized within the utility.” The analyzing lawyer shouldn’t initially refuse registration on the Principal Register as generic, even when sturdy proof of genericness exists. As a substitute, the analyzing lawyer ought to refuse the appliance as merely descriptive and decide whether or not the generic.com time period is able to serving as a supply indicator. Word, nonetheless, that if you’re making use of for registration beneath a declare of acquired distinctiveness and there’s sturdy proof of genericness, the analyzing lawyer might situation a refusal on that foundation.

The excellent news for candidates is that the Reserving.com determination eliminated the per se roadblock of genericness that the USPTO erected to refuse registration of generic.com phrases. Nevertheless, candidates nonetheless must navigate the examination course of to keep away from/overcome descriptiveness or genericness refusals. And, the USPTO notes that the “applicant [must] present a big quantity of precise proof” to indicate that the generic.com time period has acquired distinctiveness within the minds of shoppers.