Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/19-46_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

Opinion of the Court 

v.  Stroh  Brewing  Co.,  124  F. 3d  137,  149  (CA2  1997); 
Blinded  Veterans  Assn.  v.  Blinded  Am.  Veterans  Founda-
tion, 872 F. 2d 1035, 1042–1048 (CADC 1989).  But federal 
trademark  registration  would  offer  Booking.com  greater 
protection.    See,  e.g.,  Genesee  Brewing,  124  F. 3d,  at  151 
(unfair-competition law would oblige competitor at most to 
“make more of an effort” to reduce confusion, not to cease 
marketing its product using the disputed term); Matal, 582 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 5) (federal registration confers val-
uable benefits); Brief for Respondent 26 (expressing inten-
tion to seek protections available to trademark owners un-
der  the  Anticybersquatting  Consumer  Protection  Act,  15 
U. S. C. §1125(d)); Brief for Coalition of .Com Brand Own-
ers  as  Amici  Curiae  14–19  (trademark  rights  allow  mark 
owners to stop domain-name abuse through private dispute 
resolution  without  resorting  to  litigation).    We  have  no 
cause to deny Booking.com the same benefits Congress ac-
corded other marks qualifying as nongeneric. 

* 

  * 

  * 
  The PTO challenges the judgment below on a sole ground: 
It  urges  that,  as  a  rule,  combining  a  generic  term  with 
“.com” yields a generic composite.  For the above-stated rea-
sons, we decline a rule of that order, one that would largely 
disallow  registration  of  “generic.com”  terms  and  open  the 
door to cancellation of scores of currently registered marks.  
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the 
Fourth Circuit regarding eligibility for trademark registra-
tion is 

Affirmed.