Web.com Plans .Web Top Level Domain
Monday, October 24th, 2011
Company plans to apply for .web and says no one else should be allowed to get the TLD.
Publicly traded Web.com plans to apply for the .web top level domain name and says no one else should be allowed to apply for the TLD due to its trademarks.
The company has a pre-reservation form up on its web site and just filed a trademark application for the name.
This is the first I’ve heard of the company’s plans, although its trademark application says it has been using .web in commerce since June.
I expect multiple applications for .web. A number of companies have proposed it over the years, and an unofficial version runs outside the official root.
Still, Web.com is making it clear it thinks no one else should be able to operate the .web top level domain name. On its terms and conditions page for .web it states:
In addition to the significant common law trademark rights and consumer goodwill acquired in its Web.com business name and trademark, Web.com also owns several U.S. and international trademark registrations with respect thereto. Web.com and its predecessors have used these trademarks or variations thereof since 1996 and in the process have developed a strong reputation and unquestionable goodwill in conjunction with them. Web.com spends considerable resources building and maintaining this valuable goodwill and consumer recognition associated with its brand and services and is committed to enforcing its significant intellectual property rights related thereto.
Since the “.WEB” TLD is obviously very similar to the Web.com trade name, trademarks, and the character string associated with the main Web.com web address, www.web.com, it is clear that Web.com should be the company to operate and administer the .WEBâ„¢ domain registry and this is a role that Web.com expects to assume and looks forward to doing so. Moreover, the issuance of .WEBâ„¢ to anyone other than Web.com would not only infringe on the trademark rights in Web.com, but the use of .WEBâ„¢ by anyone other than Web.com would mislead and confuse consumers into thinking that any website with the .web suffix was associated with or sponsored by Web.com. Therefore, Web.com has taken steps to secure the necessary approvals to operate and administer the .WEBâ„¢ domain name registry and remains committed to aggressively continue to pursue such approvals.
Web.com owns Register.com and is buying Network Solutions, so if it actually runs the registry this would be another example of a registrar wishing to take advantage of possible loosened registry/registrar co-ownerships restrictions.
This will be an interesting one to watch.
Further Reading:
What do you think Andrew ? Will they get it straight on because of their trademark ?
How do you enforce a trademark when you are contractually committed to allow any accredited registrar to sell it?
This is a longshot, but could be a marquis battle in the ‘dotmark’ landscape.
I would like to see a .web extension, there must be some others applying to run this extenion.
So, basically they are saying that all owners of ‘word.com’ are inherently entitled to the rights for the ‘.word’ registry. So, vegas.com automatically gets the .vegas registry, poker.com gets .poker.. etc
They further suggest that ANY website that uses the .web suffix would confuse consumers that the ‘.web’ site is somehow affiliated with web.com. So, they are saying not only that nobody else can operate the registry, but nobody can own and operate a second level website under the .web extension.
good luck with that
@ Tom G – If it’s a .brand TLD why would they be forced to let everyone sell it? They can come up with their own rules for who sells it, right?
@ RH – I believe your trademark would have to be for “Web”, not “Web.com”
This one should be an interesting case. I could be a lawyer for either side as it’s easy to see arguments both ways.
I imagine Chris Ambler will have something to say about that. Postel apparently promised him .web about a hundred years ago and he’s asserted rights to it ever since.
I always figured .web was the one TLD that would never happen because of all the prior baggage around it.
@Andrew Yes, agree. I thought of that after I posted. But then, their pre registration (err, pre-’reservation’) page certainly seems targeted toward open regs.
@ Tom G – yes, I think they plan on open regs, but there’s nothing stopping any .brand TLD from offering open registration.
@Andrew True that
Is web.com going to be able to successfully apply for .web as a .BRAND?
Where’s Mr. Berryhill when we need him?
Really there’s little demarcation between .brand and other TLDs. .brand was an afterthought even though I think it will make up the bulk of applications.
here’s the applicable examiners guidelines for TLD trademarks
1215.02(d) Marks Comprised Solely of TLDs for Domain Name Registry Services
If a mark is composed solely of a TLD for “domain name registry services” (e.g., the services of registering .com domain names), registration should be refused under Trademark Act §§1, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1053 and 1127, on the ground that the TLD would not be perceived as a mark. The examining attorney should include evidence from the LEXIS(r) database, the Internet, or other sources to show that the proposed mark is currently used as a TLD or is under consideration as a new TLD.
If the TLD merely describes the subject or user of the domain space, registration should be refused under Trademark Act §2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. 2(e)(1), on the ground that the TLD is merely descriptive of the registry services.
Considering that .web was applied for in 2000, count on this one having multiple applications and potential lawsuits tied to it.
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/web1/index2.html
Sure .web has been applied for before, but Web.com actually has deep enough pockets to pull it off, including dealing with prior applicants.
Wouldn’t they be forced to make this a community application?
“it is clear that Web.com should be the company to operate ”
i wish everything that i thought was clear to me, i could then make clear and law for everyone else….
how many trademark lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb? answer zero – because he thinks he trademarked “light” and no one else has the right to touch it……….
This is stupidity of the highest order.
Is it “clear” that net.com must operate .net?