Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 12

10  PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. BOOKING.COM B. V. 

Opinion of the Court 

are categorically incapable of identifying a source.5 

The PTO’s reliance on Goodyear is flawed in another re-
spect.  The  PTO  understands  Goodyear  to  hold  that  “Ge-
neric Company” terms “are ineligible for trademark protec-
tion  as  a  matter  of  law”—regardless  of  how  “consumers
would understand” the term.  Brief for Petitioners 38.  But, 
as noted, whether a term is generic depends on its meaning 
to consumers.  Supra, at 6.  That bedrock principle of the
Lanham Act is incompatible with an unyielding legal rule
that  entirely  disregards  consumer  perception.    Instead, 
Goodyear reflects a more modest principle harmonious with 
Congress’ subsequent enactment: A compound of generic el-
ements  is  generic  if  the  combination  yields  no  additional 
meaning to consumers capable of distinguishing the goods
or services. 

The PTO also invokes the oft-repeated principle that “no 
matter  how  much  money  and  effort  the  user  of  a  generic
term has poured into promoting the sale of its merchandise 

—————— 

5 In passing, the PTO urges us to disregard that a domain name is as-
signed to only one entity at a time.  That fact, the PTO suggests, stems
from  “a  functional  characteristic  of  the  Internet  and  the domain-name 
system,”  and  functional  features  cannot  receive  trademark  protection.
Brief for Petitioners 32.  “[A] product feature is functional, and cannot 
serve as a trademark,” we have held, “if it is essential to the use or pur-
pose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.”  TrafFix 
Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U. S. 23, 32 (2001) (internal 
quotation marks omitted); see §1052(e) (barring from the principal reg-
istrar “any matter that, as a whole, is functional”).  This case, however, 
does not concern trademark protection for a feature of the Internet or the
domain-name  system;  Booking.com  lays  no  claim  to  the  use  of  unique 
domain names generally.  Nor does the PTO contend that the particular
domain name “Booking.com” is essential to the use or purpose of online 
hotel-reservation services, affects these services’ cost or quality, or is oth-
erwise necessary for competitors to use.  In any event, we have no occa-
sion to decide the applicability of §1052(e)’s functionality bar, for the sole 
ground on which the PTO refused registration, and the sole claim before 
us, is that “Booking.com” is generic.