Can I register a domain with a word "google" on it?
Thanks in advance!
[edited by: Webwork at 7:39 pm (utc) on Jan. 8, 2008]
[edit reason] No specific domain examples please [/edit]
You are able to register any domain you want (exception: I understand some registrars will stop you from registering offensive words, generally swearwords)
So you are able to register other people's trademarks, eg a domain name with the word 'google' in it.
*but* you should not expect to hold it long before you get a rude letter from the trademark owner's lawyers (particularly such a big and internet savvy trademark owner as Google).
In some cases you may get away with it for a long time, if no-one notices, but your ownership is considered non-legitimate. You are not entitled to a domain containing a trademark that belongs to someone else.
Hope that helps!
And the only person qualified to answer beyond that is an attorney with appropriate experience.
So you may be lucky for an extended period of time once under the radar but long turn "sleep at night factor" would indicate to me not going down this path.
I have always wondered how all those "example-sucks dot com" websites manage to get away with it. Or, for example, websites that make allegations about 'faulty' products and who use the name of the manufacturer in the domain name. Some of these companies are huge multinationals and could surely sue the living daylights out of these websites if they wanted to. Yet I can think of a couple of famous examples that have been around for years.
But yes, either way, common sense would dictate that you avoid using trademarked terms in domain names.
I have always wondered how all those "example-sucks dot com" websites manage to get away with it. Or, for example, websites that make allegations about 'faulty' products and who use the name of the manufacturer in the domain name. Some of these companies are huge multinationals and could surely sue the living daylights out of these websites if they wanted to. Yet I can think of a couple of famous examples that have been around for years.
I've read a few decisions over the years about "protest sites" -- and in many cases (I've read) the protest site was allowed to stand.
An article in The Register [theregister.co.uk] reported in 2005 that:
"Decisions on 'sucks' sites have gone both ways trade mark owners in the past. But the current panel's majority view on their similarity to a trade mark is supported by a WIPO report on trends in domain name dispute decisions, published in March. On 'sucks' sites, it agreed that non-fluent English speakers would fail to recognise the negative connotations of the word."
Part of just one decision involving a "famous" trademark that broke with the majority view:
In this domain name dispute resolved in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") the Panel refused to direct Respondent Green People to transfer the domain name Home Depot Sucks.com, at which Respondent operated a "protest site," to Complainant, owner of the famous "Home Depot" trademark. Rejecting the majority view, the Panel found that the disputed domain was neither identical nor confusingly similar to Complainant's mark because it included the pejorative term "sucks" in addition to Complainant's trademark. The Panel further held that Respondent had a legitimate interest in this domain, which had not been registered in bad faith, because Respondent had used the domain for seven years as the home of a web site critical of Home Depot. The Panel accordingly found that Complainant had failed to establish its entitlement to relief under the UDRP, and denied its complaint.
You can read more on this decision here [internetlibrary.com].
