Is the Domain name itself copyrighted?

If I decide to make merchandise like T-shirts and Coffee mugs that have my domain name written on it, can another company steal my domain name and copyright it themselves?

I am not a lawyer, but....

No, the domain name itself is not copyrighted. However, it can be trademarked. Check the rules at the United States Patent and Trademark office. (http://www.USPTO.gov) Here's a quote from their site:

A Copyright is a form of protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works, both published and unpublished. The 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work, to prepare derivative works, to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work, to perform the copyrighted work publicly, or to display the copyrighted work publicly.
The copyright protects the form of expression rather than the subject matter of the writing. For example, a description of a machine could be copyrighted, but this would only prevent others from copying the description; it would not prevent others from writing a description of their own or from making and using the machine. Copyrights are registered by the Library of Congress' Copyright Office.

There are times when you may desire a combination of copyright, patent and trademark protection for your work. You should consult an attorney to determine what forms of intellectual property protection are best suited to your needs.

If you're merchandising, get a trademark. And talk to your lawyer....

You can't copyright a domain name.

in the US its not possible

in Europe you can register a trademark like "hello" (just a stupid example), then you have the right to get any hello.XXX you want ASLONG as you are not fighting against a US owner. If you want to have hello.com and it belongs to a person living in the EU you can fight for it and may be win, but if the person/company who owns hello.com is in the US you hardly have any chance...

(this is my personal experience I got from fighting/buying names for companies working together with lawyers...)

and may be win

Maybe. Maybe not.

Hi thanks for the responses, but I just want to clarify because it seems kind of unfair
1. lets say I get a domain name www.coolnameXYZ.*com (http://www.coolnameXYZ.*com) and I don't have it trademarked
2. A person sees that name and likes it, so that he decides to trademark the name coolnameXYZ for his own company that also has a website

Can he kick me off my domain name even though I'm the one who chose it first?

No he can't. That's called reverse hijacking.

in the US its not possible

in Europe you can register a trademark like "hello" (just a stupid example), then you have the right to get any hello.XXX you want ASLONG as you are not fighting against a US owner. If you want to have hello.com and it belongs to a person living in the EU you can fight for it and may be win, but if the person/company who owns hello.com is in the US you hardly have any chance...

(this is my personal experience I got from fighting/buying names for companies working together with lawyers...)

Cool Is it not very funny like some usual words being trademarked. I mean to say if there any such thing with common words in trademark problem.

No he can't.

Yes they can, actually. There's nothing to stop anyone from suing anybody for anything.

If what the OP is really asking is will it prosper, that's something only a dispute resolution provider can answer if it reaches that point.

in the US its not possible

in Europe you can register a trademark like "hello" (just a stupid example), then you have the right to get any hello.XXX you want ASLONG as you are not fighting against a US owner. If you want to have hello.com and it belongs to a person living in the EU you can fight for it and may be win, but if the person/company who owns hello.com is in the US you hardly have any chance...

(this is my personal experience I got from fighting/buying names for companies working together with lawyers...)

Confusing....

You say that you can't do 'it' in the US, but then proceed to discuss trademarks in Europe. In actual fact, you can trademark domain names. The SLD is what's trademarked, according to the US Patent and Trademark Office, Guide 2-99: (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm)

When a trademark, service mark, collective mark or certification mark is composed, in whole or in part, of a domain name, neither the beginning of the URL (http://www.) nor the TLD have any source indicating significance. Instead, those designations are merely devices that every Internet site provider must use as part of its address.

Further:

A mark composed of a domain name is registrable as a trademark or service mark [only if it functions as a source identifier.]

Hi thanks for the responses, but I just want to clarify because it seems kind of unfair
1. lets say I get a domain name www.coolnameXYZ.*com (http://www.coolnameXYZ.*com) and I don't have it trademarked
2. A person sees that name and likes it, so that he decides to trademark the name coolnameXYZ for his own company that also has a website

Can he kick me off my domain name even though I'm the one who chose it first?

I am still not a lawyer, but....

If you can show prior use in commerce, it'll be rather difficult for someone to take your common-law trademark.

But, since I'm still not a lawyer, you should contact someone who is. :D Find someone who specializes in trademark law.

If you want to get a leg up, visit the US Patent And Trademark Office (http://www.USPTO.gov) and read up on the subject. Note that the US is a Contracting Party to the Madrid Protocol, so you have the option of protecting your trademark internationally. Take a peek at the World Intellectual Property Organization (http://www.wipo.int/madrid/en) site for details about Contracting Parties.

[only if it functions as a source identifier.]

This is the catch. It's very hard to prove to the USTPO that your domain name is a source identifier. Which is why you don't see many (I've seen none) trademarked domain names. However the op was talking about copyrighting a domain name, not trademarking one.

Which is why you don't see many (I've seen none) trademarked domain names.

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78023371

Word Mark MESS.COM
Goods and Services IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: Computer services, namely, designing, creating and implementing network web pages and web sites for others. FIRST USE: 19961210. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19991210
IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Providing information in the field of entertainment services, namely, art and music via a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19961210. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19991210

There are a few others. But that stands out because it was later used in an unsuccessful bid to wrest the domain name from its current holder.

It's very hard to prove to the USTPO that your domain name is a source identifier. Which is why you don't see many (I've seen none) trademarked domain names.

Right. I knew that. That's why I included the quote. Full disclosure and all that....

However the op was talking about copyrighting a domain name, not trademarking one.

Many people are unclear about the differences between a trademark and a copyright. I figured that the thread was about protection of the OP's intellectual property because of the concern that the domain name would be stolen, so trademark is the only possible option....

I am still not a lawyer, but....

If you can show prior use in commerce, it'll be rather difficult for someone to take your common-law trademark.


I agree. This is what my lawyer told me when I was trademarking a few names for a clothing line. By registering a trademark, you are only officially announcing to the world it is your mark and establishing an exact date it was used in commerce. If someone else can prove they were using it before you, they have full rights to it even if they never took the time to register it.

No problem, Domainitor.

Thanks, Dave. You mean they were able to register mess.com without owning the domain? Can't be. They surely must have let the domain expire and someone else registered it. Yeh?

Thanks, Dave. You mean they were able to register mess.com without owning the domain? Can't be. They surely must have let the domain expire and someone else registered it. Yeh?

The party filed an application, that was eventually granted trademark status, for a domain name they never held. They have the .net, but I guess they wanted the .com that's registered to someone else.

Oh, and here's the decision in question:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0964.html

They gambled...and lost.

very interesting ..im already learing allot!,;)

You don't even need a good case to sue someone. Bottom line, if you get sued, win or loose, you still loose. A very large corporation sued me in a copyright case a little more than a year ago. I had a very good attorney and after reviewing the facts of the case, explained that they had no case. He felt once we provided the evidence they requested, it would prove that I didn't violate a copyright and they would drop the case.

Not hardly. What happened was this company farms out all of these types of cases to a law firm in CA. The law firm doesn't get paid unless they collect something. So proof of no infringement was not enough for them to drop the case.

Basically, I was left with two options. I was already in over 12K with my attorney with a case he was sure I would win at trial. The problem was he was also sure it would cost me another 30K - 40K in legal fees to win the suit.

or

I could settle the suit for a lesser amount and be done with it. Holding my nose, this is what I did.

Proof that this thing was a joke is the fact that they would not settle unless I signed away my rights to disclose any facts of the case to the media. This includes their name, details, and the settlement amount. Without this agreement, they would not settle.

I live in Nashville and there is a similar situation with a country star named Keith Urban. There is another guy in NJ that is named Keith Urban and registered KeithUrban.com before the country singer gained celebrity. Instead of offering to buy the domain, the country singer is suing the other Keith Urban in an extent to extort the domain.

Win or loose, the defendant looses. This is total BS.

Keith should go to the Garth Brooks School of manners.

http://keithurban.com/lawsuit/Keith%20Urban%20Complaint%20(00188521).pdf (http://keithurban.com/lawsuit/Keith%20Urban%20Complaint%20(00188521).pdf)

http://keithurban.com/lawsuit/009%20Answer-Counterclaim%20of%20Keith%20D.%20Urban%20(Urban-Urban)%20(00196515).PDF (http://keithurban.com/lawsuit/009%20Answer-Counterclaim%20of%20Keith%20D.%20Urban%20(Urban-Urban)%20(00196515).PDF)

http://keithurban.com/lawsuit/010%20Pl's%20Initial%20Case%20Management%20Order%20(Urban-Urban)%20(00197716).PDF (http://keithurban.com/lawsuit/010%20Pl's%20Initial%20Case%20Management%20Order%20(Urban-Urban)%20(00197716).PDF)

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770405027 (http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770405027)

I hope another Brent Crouch doesn't get famous and come after http://www.brentcrouch.com .........probably not..

clearly a reverse hijacking case, Dave. But what I'm surprised about (even shocked) is the USPTO granted the trademark of the domain name, even when they didn't own the domain. How on earth did they demonstrate how the mark functions as a source identifier.

Brent, the good old US legal system,eh! Don't you get your fees back if you win?

Brent, the good old US legal system,eh! Don't you get your fees back if you win?

I wished it worked that way. If it did, I would have spent the money and went to trial. It would be a great way to balance things out and would prevent a lot of frivolous lawsuits.

Have you heard about the judge that is suing the dry cleaner for 65 million for a lost pair of pants? This case is so frivolous it may be the rare case where the judge hearing the case will make the plaintiff pay all the legal fees. He should also be beaten and then hung.

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1266674.html