# Would something like pepsistuff.com be a trademark violation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 15, 2001, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-something-like-pepsistuff-com-be-a-trademark-violation/81816 "2001-09-15T14:20:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-something-like-pepsistuff-com-be-a-trademark-violation/81816/1 "2001-09-15T14:20:58Z")
If I register a domain name with a trademark in it, but not the sole word, is that a trademark violation? Batmanmovie? Windexcleaner? ---
**Author:** ![handy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5a626/32.png) [@handy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handy)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-something-like-pepsistuff-com-be-a-trademark-violation/81816/2 "2001-09-15T14:37:39Z")
Yes it is. A guy tried that, registering car names with slight variations & got sued. Actually they can sue even if it isn’t a violation but no one wants to pay for the defense. ---
**Author:** ![micco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f8ce5/32.png) [@micco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/micco)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-something-like-pepsistuff-com-be-a-trademark-violation/81816/3 "2001-09-15T19:08:31Z")
Trademarks are industry-specific, so using the word in an entirely different context might be okay. If you can demonstrate (and you will have to prove it - no presumption of innocence here) that your use of the mark is not likely to confuse consumers, then you may win the suit. For example, if “Windex” is trademarked as a “glass cleaner” or somesuch and you use the name for “a device to wind watches”, you should be able to get your own trademark and use the name as you like, including in a domain name. However, the other owners of similar trademarks can still sue and continue to drag out the case until you throw up your hands in frustration or give all your money to lawyers. Unfortunately, the system favors the big players. In the cases you cite (batmanmovie, pepsistuff), it seems clear that your site would actually refer to the existing product rather than being something new and non-competing. In that case, it’s definitely a trademark infringment because you’re using the word to refer to someone else’s protected product. The whole point of trademarks is to prevent you from doing this. ---
**Author:** ![furryman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/furryman/32/99_2.png) [@furryman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furryman)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2001, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-something-like-pepsistuff-com-be-a-trademark-violation/81816/4 "2001-09-15T19:32:01Z")
I know [http://www.startrek.com](http://www.startrek.com) is the official Star Trek web page. What about [http://www.darkshadows.com](http://www.darkshadows.com), does their use of the trademarked name imply that the have some kind of deal with MCI? (the current owners of Dark Shadows) ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-something-like-pepsistuff-com-be-a-trademark-violation/81816/5 "2001-09-16T01:49:27Z")
You might be considered a cybersquatter. It is fairly easy to sue & win against cybersquatters because they don’t usually show up in court. [This thread on cybersquatters](http://www.snopes.com) is more than a year old but has some good info on the subject. Part of my post there: > [@](#): > > In an ironic and innovative legal strategy, Bell Atlantic is leading the fight against [cybersquatters] using a tactic that merchants in the 1800s used against pirates who plundered their ships. > > Called “in rem” – Latin for “against the thing” —the legal maneuver enables us to dispense with suing the individual or company responsible and go after the name itself. Just as 19th-century merchants realized the futility of suing pirates who were unlikely to show up in court, Bell Atlantic realizes that Internet pirates often use false names and addresses and cannot be found. > > By suing the ship and winning, the merchants were able to have ownership of the ship transferred to them. Today, by suing the domain names, we’re winning in court and having the pirated names handed over to us. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2001, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-something-like-pepsistuff-com-be-a-trademark-violation/81816/6 "2001-09-16T01:51:07Z")
[_This_](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=23956) thread on cybersquatters. :o