| 英文摘要 |
This article discusses that whether a domain name combined by generic terms is classified as a generic name or a descriptive mark. This is relevant that whether a domain name combined by generic names is protected by the trademark right, which are decided by trademark distinctiveness. In particular, types of trademark use are various in the digital age, such as a domain name is also protected by the trademark right. The U.S. Supreme Court (hereafter called the Supreme Court) in June, 2020 made the judgment for the case: United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V. (hereafter called this case), and main contents of this case are that a domain name combined by generic names can still be registered as a trademark. In this case, the Supreme Court overruled the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s previous opinions that are followed the Supreme Court case: Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., and its contents are included that a generic name of a specific corporation (e.g., “.com”) added a generic name is not registered as a trademark for these marks. Although results of this case are advantageous for enterprises to develop trademark layout, the Supreme Court indicated in this case that relevant consumers could know characters of goods’ or services’ origins through “generic.com,” which mean that a relationship of a specific domain name. But, this case is still left some problems: First, when any generic name added “.com” is registered as a trademark, is a similar and registered generic name prohibited using anytime? Is it caused a trademark infringement? Moreover, whether a trademark right owner abuses its right or not? In addition, this case puts emphasis that whether a combination of generic names is registered as a trademark, and it is decided by judgment of trademark distinctiveness in digital (domain name) or traditional scenario. Therefore, this article will discuss that distinctiveness judgment for a combined generic name is for each name or all names. Finally, this article discusses the U.S. legal theories and judicial judgments based on arguments in this case about advantages or shortcomings of a generic name combination registered for a trademark protection. This article tangibly proposes suggestions and policies about future amendments and directions. |
