question About domain and trademark violations

[TUMERR]

Hello,

I'd like to start a useful discussion about domain name and trademark violations. please contribute. @Bob Hawkes

I would like to get more detailed information about domain name and trademark violations.

Can two-word domains be trademark infringement?

I want to give an example.

meta/xxx.com

buzz/xxx.com

madam/xxx.com

The first words start with brand names and the second word has a different meaning.

Do such domain names violate trademark rights?

My native language is not English, there may be typos, I apologize in advance.

 

[karmaco]

No they are not trademark violations unless a trademark exists with the two words. You need to check TESS or Trademarkia etc before a purchase if in doubt.

A trademark doesn’t mean no one else can use the word if its a generic dictionary word with multiple uses.

The trademark simply limits what category/niche others could trademark the same one word in.

Two words are fine as long as the two words aren’t trademarked.

Sorry I am not Bob…lol

 

[TUMERR]

No they are not trademark violations unless a trademark exists with the two words. You need to check TESS or Trademarkia etc before a purchase if in doubt.

A trademark doesn’t mean no one else can use the word if its a generic dictionary word with multiple uses.

The trademark simply limits what category/niche others could trademark the same one word in.

Two words are fine as long as the two words aren’t trademarked.

Sorry I am not Bob…lol

Thank you for your answer. As I understand it, the two words in the domain names must match exactly so that vipo is a trademark violation. Matching the first word does not constitute trademark infringement. Did I get right.

by the way, the purpose of me trying to include bob in the subject is to get more participation. but it hasn't arrived yet..

 

[cyberlawyer]

Simply, if a domain name has two words, one is a Trademark/Brand Name and another a dictionary word or name of a geographical place. It would still be considered as Bad Faith and violation in terms of UDRP.

It is not necessary that both the words should match a registered Trademark. There are many such examples, see <pumaicolombia.com> here: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2022-0015 and <tommytaiwan.com> - https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2022-0054.

 

[TUMERR]

Simply, if a domain name has two words, one is a Trademark/Brand Name and another a dictionary word or name of a geographical place. It would still be considered as Bad Faith and violation in terms of UDRP.

It is not necessary that both the words should match a registered Trademark. There are many such examples, see <pumaicolombia.com> here: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2022-0015 and <tommytaiwan.com> - https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2022-0054.

@cyberlawyer Sir, I want to give an example, network is a very general term.
There are dozens of brands with just two words that start with that name or network.

When a domain name investor buys Network--xxxx.com and puts it up for sale, is it infringing on one of the dozens of brands?

 

[cyberlawyer]

So here in "Network--xxxx.com", which part you are referring to as Trademark ?

 

[TUMERR]

Any second word compatible with network could be this mobile or more...

https://alter.com/trademarks?q=Network

In the link below, there are dozens of brands that start with a different word and the first word.

https://alter.com/trademarks?q=mynet

 

[cyberlawyer]

Yes Network is a generic word and in case it is adopted as a Trademark, the protection would be limited. Unless such word has achieved a secondary meaning in the term like APPLE... or otherwise unless there is a direct violation of the rights of a trademark holder, there are no issues !

 

[TUMERR]

Yes Network is a generic word and in case it is adopted as a Trademark, the protection would be limited. Unless such word has achieved a secondary meaning in the term like APPLE... or otherwise unless there is a direct violation of the rights of a trademark holder, there are no issues !

Thank you very much for the information.