1645
Twitter
Facebook
Fark.com Mobile
Copyright © 1999 - 2021 Fark, Inc
Last updated: Jan 18 2021 11:38:50
Contact | Report error | TOS/legal/privacy
Full site
Copyright © 1999 - 2021 Fark, Inc
Last updated: Jan 18 2021 11:38:50
Contact | Report error | TOS/legal/privacy
Full site
close
close
I've been telling clients that for a long time.
close
wetrat: But can they trademark "Booking.yeah"?
or "Booking.YoMama"
close
close
close
The Fark headline did.
Thanks, Fark.com™!
close
bhcompy: This seems like a common sense decision. Good to see something the bulk of the court agrees on
I said this over in the other SCOTUS one, but in general SCOTUS rulings are pretty lopsided. They don't make the news as much, though.
close
eKonk: My question: Let's say the company decides to no longer pay for the url. Can they use their trademark to prevent someone else from using it?
I think that'd be a call by WIPO, but so long as they keep paying for the registration, they own it (unless they stop using it altogether -- I think there's some WIPO rules about squatting "just because", but it's been a long time since I read up on it)
close
Peter Weyland: bhcompy: This seems like a common sense decision. Good to see something the bulk of the court agrees on
I said this over in the other SCOTUS one, but in general SCOTUS rulings are pretty lopsided. They don't make the news as much, though.
The 95% of cases they don't take are almost always because they agree.
/they only deny a few because they want to procrastinate
close
close
dbirchall: The legal beagle's tweet didn't make it clear who actually won.
The Fark headline did.
Thanks, Fark.com™!
Yeah I had google what happened and read an actual news article.
Twitter isn't always helpful
close
close
close