U.S. Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 591 U.S. 549

Background

Booking.com (operator of booking.com) applied to register four marks containing the term “Booking.com” for travel-reservation services; the PTO refused registration as generic.
TTAB and a PTO examining attorney found BOOKING.COM generic because “booking” is generic and “.com” denotes a commercial website.
Under 15 U.S.C. §1071(b) Booking.com submitted additional consumer-perception evidence to the district court; the district court found BOOKING.COM not generic and that it had acquired secondary meaning for hotel-reservation services.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court; the PTO sought certiorari arguing that any “generic.com” term is per se generic.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit: it rejected a per se rule that combining a generic term with ".com" makes it generically ineligible; whether a “generic.com” mark is generic depends on consumer perception (surveys, dictionaries, usage, etc.).
Justice Sotomayor concurred (warning surveys are imperfect); Justice Breyer dissented, arguing that “generic.com” is ordinarily generic and registration risks anticompetitive effects.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (PTO)	Defendant's Argument (Booking.com)	Held
Whether a generic term + ".com" is per se generic	A nearly per se rule: every "generic.com" is generic; adding ".com" is like adding "Company" (Goodyear)	No; combining with ".com" can convey source to consumers; must ask how consumers perceive the whole term	Rejected per se rule; genericness depends on consumer perception
Whether "Booking.com" is generic for online hotel-reservation services	PTO maintained it is generic (primary issue on appeal)	Booking.com produced evidence showing consumers view BOOKING.COM as a brand and not the name of the class; also showed secondary meaning	BOOKING.COM is not generic here (courts below credited consumer-perception evidence); registration may be permitted
Proper evidence and test for genericness	Argued consumer perception inquiry unnecessary if per se rule applied	Consumer perception is determinative; surveys, dictionaries, usage, etc., are probative	Primary-significance/consumer-perception test governs; surveys and other evidence admissible but must be carefully evaluated
Policy concern: whether registration would harm competition	Registration of "generic.com" would unduly restrict others' use of generic words and domain-name space	Existing doctrines (likelihood of confusion, fair use, narrow scope for weak marks) and domain-name exclusivity limit anticompetitive risk; registration provides legitimate benefits	Court: policy concerns do not justify categorical exclusion; trademark doctrines constrain overbroad exclusion

Key Cases Cited

Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (distinguishing generic terms and explaining trademark interests in consumer identification)
Goodyear's India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U.S. 598 (1888) (corporate designation added to a generic term does not create an exclusive trademark)
Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) (discusses categories of distinctiveness and inherently distinctive marks)
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) (trademark protection for distinctive marks and the Lanham Act framework)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) (inherent distinctiveness and principal register eligibility)
TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) (functionality doctrine limiting trademark protection)
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004) (classic fair use and limits on trademark enforcement)
Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938) (generic terms cannot be monopolized even if associated with a first user)
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4 (2d Cir. 1976) (classification framework for distinctiveness and discussion of descriptive vs. generic terms)