Trademark Attorney Morris Turek

Morris E. Turek

(314) 749-4059

morris@yourtrademarkattorney.com

  Google Plus Facebook Twitter 
YouTube YouTube

Trademark Attorney Morris Turek Featured on KPLR-11 St. Louis!

St. Louis Trademark Attorney Morris Turek

Watch Morris' Interview on KPLR!

St. Louis Trademark Lawyer Morris Turek

Watch Morris on All About Business!


Listen to Morris on KTRS Radio St. Louis!

Is “HOTELS.COM” Really Generic?

In In Re Hotels.com, L.P., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision that HOTELS.COM is generic for online hotel booking services and, therefore, not entitled to any trademark protection whatsoever.

As many of you probably know, generic terms are not trademarks and are not entitled to any trademark protection.  For instance, the word “hotel” is generic when it is used in connection with products and services related to hotels.  If I wanted to open up a new hotel and name it “Hotel Morris” (and why wouldn’t I?), nobody else in the hotel business could stop me from using the word “hotel” as part of my name.  In other words, nobody can claim exclusive rights to the word “hotel” if it is being used to advertise and sell hotel services.

For many years, it has been the policy of the Trademark Office to treat generic terms combined with “.COM” (e.g. “hotels.com”) in the same way it treats plain old generic terms (e.g. “hotel”).  The rationale behind this is that the “.COM” only serves to indicate that the product or service preceding the “.COM” is rendered or offered over the Internet.  So, when Hotels.com applied to register its trademark HOTELS.COM for essentially online hotel booking services, the Trademark Office refused registration on the basis that HOTELS.COM was generic for such services.  This decision was affirmed by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and, subsequently, by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

I strongly believe that the Trademark Office’s policy of treating generic terms combined with “.COM” in the same manner as generic terms by themselves is wrong and fails to take into account how people think about trademarks and the Internet.  Let’s compare the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1.  Did you use an online hotel booking service to reserve your hotel room?  If yes, which online hotel booking service did you use?

Scenario 2.  Did you use Hotels.com to reserve your hotel room?  If yes, which Hotels.com did you use?

In Scenario 1, the second question could be answered “Hotels.com,” but it could also be answered “Travelocity,” “Expedia,” “Orbitz,” etc.  However, in Scenario 2, the second question makes no sense to the average person.  Why?  Because unlike the phrase “online hotel booking service,” which clearly doesn’t identify any specific company, average individuals in the United States recognize HOTELS.COM as a brand name and associate HOTELS.COM with a specific provider of online hotel booking services.  In fact, such a strange question would likely elicit a response similar to “What do you mean?  There’s only one Hotels.com.”

And that’s the key.  There is only one Hotels.com, just like there is only one Shoes.com, one Jeans.com, one Printers.com, and one Chairs.com.  And, the commercial reality is that there will only ever be one business using the name Hotels.com, Shoes.com, Printers.com. etc. at any given time because a business would only choose to use such a name if it also owned the corresponding domain name, of which there is only one.  For example, I would not want to start operating a competing online hotel booking service under the name HOTELS.COM if I didn’t also own the www.hotels.com domain name because I would just cause consumers to visit my competitor rather than me.  Nobody would do something so incredibly stupid.  The nature of the name itself effectively excludes all others from using it.  Hell, these generic terms combined with “.COM” may be the strongest trademarks ever created!

In conclusion, the Trademark Office needs to step into the 21st century when it comes to generic terms combined with “.COM” and stop trying to apply outdated trademark law from 50 years ago without considering the commercial reality of how trademarks, domain names, and e-commerce intersect.

Share This Page

5 Responses to Is “HOTELS.COM” Really Generic?

  1. Jason Bajor says:

    Morris, my response to your “Scenario 2” did indeed elicit a response of “there is only one hotels.com.” Clearly there can be only one, as you state, because the nature of the domain name business will only allow for one. Does the Trademark Office treat other top-level domains such as .net and .org the same way?

  2. Morris Turek says:

    Jason,

    Yes, as far as I know, the Trademark Office treats all top-level domains the same way it treats .COM.

  3. Joshua Tanzer says:

    Morris, given that hotels.com is now considered generic, can one use that fact to disparage the business in commercials?

    IE, Hotels.com offers prices that double that of orbitz… **Hotels.com is a registered subservice of orbitz reachable at orbitz.net/purposefully_awful

  4. Morris Turek says:

    Josh,

    That is an excellent question! I had never thought about it that way! If HOTELS.COM is generic (i.e. does not indicate a particular source of products or services)and anyone can use it in connection with their online hotel booking services, then I guess I can use it in any fashion that I please. I’m not sure if your example would be something that a competitor would do, but I guess you could publish untrue things about Hotels.com and it would be like publishing untrue things about the phrase “online hotel booking service.” I think that goes to show how wrong the decision in the Hotels.com case is.

  5. Joe says:

    Thank god for this ruling. Of course there can only be one Hotels.com. This is not why they’ve spent large volumes of money. They have spent the money for one reason…so they could go after anyone and everyone with the hotel or hotels in or as part of their domain with udrp disputes and trademark infringement claims. Anyone who believes otherwise is on something very strong. I am someone who knows. I am the owner of a generic .net and my direct competitor in the same business who owns the corresponding.com which ranks #1 in google throughout all searches related to the industry has hired a lawyer to try to find a way to go after me. Again thank god for the hotels.com ruling. This company now knows they have no trademark case. They have tried to have phony customers call me to see if I would pass myself off as them to no avail and they still persist with even more nefarious schemes as prescibed by their hired guns. Why do they do this you ask? Because millions of dollars of venture capital is on the line if this company can create an online brand out of the generic term. All I want is to do business on the generic domain I rightlfully own. I have a branded corporation as well but the benefits to having both a brand with generics is enormous eg. Campbells Soup owning soups.com. Anyone who thinks that Hotels.com should receive a trademark is not living in the real world as this was nothing but a not so inconsipcuous attempt to eradicate competition and gain market share. Fortunately the courts saw right through this and pulled the curtains closed on them and the rug out from under them.

Leave a reply