# Are "dot-com" website names trademarked? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 11, 2012, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672 "2012-12-11T02:42:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/21 "2012-12-12T22:33:06Z")
> [@NitroPress](#): > > I actually hold (and have held, and use for a related purpose) a Big Name domain name - don’t want to say what, but it’s fun and the trademark owner has made several requests that I turn it over to them. (I reply, “Sure, let’s talk..” and never hear anything until the next bland request to send them the keys.) > > Anyone else hold a certifiably Big Name domain? A relative of mine registered the domain name for a band that he liked and used it as an unofficial fan site. I won’t reveal anything specific, but it’s a fairly prominent band with a worldwide following… I’d wager that 5-10% of people reading this would recognize the name if I said it. It never turned into a legal battle of any kind because he sold it to the band at a mutually agreeable price. I’m pretty sure the band could have forced some kind of settlement had it come to that, but that’s the kind of thing courts have spent two decades deciding on a case-by-case basis. ---
**Author:** ![Amateur\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/59ef9b/32.png) [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/22 "2012-12-13T00:14:04Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > One of these days, you’re going to be hit with a cybersquatting claim in federal court, and it’s going to cost you money you would rather have not spent in order to be told to hand it over anyway. Unlikely. I have a thick file of correspondence that consists of one page or email asking vaguely about assuming ownership of the domain, followed by a relatively long response, with followups, to the effect of “Sure, let’s discuss it,” and suggesting four or five simple options to proceed. Long period of silence, short inquiry, long response… repeat about four times. They stopped maybe four or five years ago. So I’m covered. I am also using the site for the most specific purpose possible. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/23 "2012-12-13T00:53:54Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > If a company is already a trademark, that would prevent competitors from using a .com version: if you wanted to set up a restaurant site named “[Mcconalds.net](http://Mcconalds.net),” you could be sure that McDonald’s would go after you and win any trademark violation suit. In that case you would be attempting to create confusion between the restaurant with the golden arches and yours. So maybe. However, there is the case of the guy who registered a web site named for his daughter, Veronica. He was sued by Archie Comics (unsuccessfully, IIRC). ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/24 "2012-12-13T18:19:48Z")
There’s a lot of “gotchas” in the details that might disallow many websites from trademarking their names. From the US regs: "§ 2 (15 U.S.C. § 1052). Trademarks registrable on the principal register; concurrent registration No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it— (a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute … (c) Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow. … " And on and on. Some obvious examples: Web sites with foul language in the names. (Can’t possibly be any of those, right? ;)) Web sites whose names are slanders on someone: [www.ceciladamsisdumb.com](http://www.ceciladamsisdumb.com). Can’t use a name involving Ronald Reagan until Nancy dies. Also, non-English trademarks are allowed but require a signed English translation. I don’t see how a non-English name web site would qualify for any protection without filing the required docs. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/25 "2012-12-13T19:23:05Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > There’s a lot of “gotchas” in the details that might disallow many websites from **trademarking** their names. Replace the highlighted word with “federally registering.” > [@](#): > > Also, non-English trademarks are allowed but require a signed English translation. I don’t see how a non-English name web site would qualify for any protection without filing the required docs. What exactly are you saying here? You quoted from a portion of the Trademark Act that says what kinds of marks can be \*\*registered \*\*with the Patent and Trademark Office. There is also a portion of the Trademark Act that protects \*\*unregistered \*\*marks. A lot of the confusion would be cleared up if people stopped thinking of “trademark” as a verb. The idea that people are “trademarking” terms leads to a lot of misconceptions. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/26 "2012-12-13T20:26:29Z")
(Regarding trademarking non-English things.) > [@Acsenray](#): > > What exactly are you saying here? You quoted from a portion of the Trademark Act that says what kinds of marks can be \*\*registered \*\*with the Patent and Trademark Office. There is also a portion of the Trademark Act that protects \*\*unregistered \*\*marks. It’s covered in a different section of the code that I didn’t quote. Hence the “also”. I’d look it up but I’ve had my fill of overly pedantic stuff for the day. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2012, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/27 "2012-12-13T21:24:14Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > I’d look it up but I’ve had my fill of overly pedantic stuff for the day. So that might explain the reason you erroneously concluded that non-English word marks don’t “quality for any protection” without registration. Or that why it seemed so, anyway. That’s why I asked you to clarify what you meant when you said “I don’t see how a non-English name web site would qualify for any protection without filing the required docs.” And now I’m confused as to what you understand by the word “pedantic.” The context seems to imply it means “things that I don’t know or understand.” ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2012, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672/28 "2012-12-14T21:32:51Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > So that might explain the reason you erroneously concluded that non-English word marks don’t “quality for any protection” without registration. Or that why it seemed so, anyway. … Note that I wrote “I don’t see how …”, which is _not_ the same as making a conclusion. You are drawing ridiculous and wrong statements from my post. This does not make people happy, surprise, surprise. If you have other information, perhaps it would be best if you ignore other poster’s, certainly don’t semi-quote them, and just provide your own information on its own. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-dot-com-website-names-trademarked/643672.md?page=1)