In Re Hotels.com, L.P.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that sixty four declarations that the mark was not generic and a customer survey did not negate the TTAB’s ultimate conclusion of genericness
• explaining that the generic term \hotels\ did not lose its generic character by placement in the domain name HOTELS.COM
• explaining that the generic term “hotels” did not lose its generic character by placement in the domain name HOTELS.COM
• finding that the trier of fact, the TTAB, could reasonably have given controlling weight to dictionary definitions and similar uses of \hotels\ with a .com suffix over a consumer survey with questionable methodology
• acknowledging that \consumers may automatically equate a domain name with a brand name\
• acknowledging that “consumers may automatically equate a domain name with a brand name”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).