Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 2.0

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

Syllabus 

Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co., 128 U. S. 598.  Good-
year, the PTO maintains, established that adding a generic corporate
designation  like  “Company”  to  a  generic  term  does  not  confer  trade-
mark  eligibility.    According  to  the  PTO,  adding  “.com”  to  a  generic 
term—like  adding  “Company”—can  convey  no  source-identifying 
meaning.  That premise is faulty, for only one entity can occupy a par-
ticular Internet domain name at a time, so a “generic.com” term could 
convey to consumers an association with a particular website.  More-
over, an unyielding legal rule that entirely disregards consumer per-
ception  is  incompatible  with  a  bedrock  principle  of  the  Lanham  Act: 
The generic (or nongeneric) character of a particular term depends on
its meaning to consumers, i.e., do consumers in fact perceive the term
as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing
among members of the class.  Pp. 8–11.

(2) The  PTO’s  policy  concerns  do  not  support  a  categorical  rule 
against  registration  of  “generic.com”  terms.  The  PTO  asserts  that 
trademark  protection  for  “Booking.com”  would  give  the  mark  owner 
undue control over similar language that others should remain free to 
use.    That  concern  attends  any  descriptive  mark.    Guarding  against
the anticompetitive effects the PTO identifies, several doctrines ensure 
that registration of “Booking.com” would not yield its holder a monop-
oly on the term “booking.”  The PTO also doubts that owners of “ge-
neric.com”  brands  need  trademark  protection  in  addition  to  existing 
competitive advantages.  Such advantages, however, do not inevitably 
disqualify  a  mark  from  federal  registration.    Finally,  the  PTO  urges
that  Booking.com  could  seek  remedies  outside  trademark  law,  but 
there is no basis to deny Booking.com the same benefits Congress ac-
corded other marks qualifying as nongeneric.  Pp. 11–14. 

915 F. 3d 171, affirmed. 

GINSBURG,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court, 

in  which 
ROBERTS, C. J.,  and THOMAS, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, GORSUCH,  and 
KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined.  SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  filed  a  concurring  opinion. 
BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.