October Term 2019 · Docket 19-46
Can a generic word become a trademark when paired with a domain extension?
The Patent and Trademark Office argues that Booking.com is a generic term. Booking.com claims the full phrase identifies its specific brand.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Ross argued that generic terms cannot be trademarked.
Ms. Blatt argued that the case distinguishes descriptive from generic names.
Ms. Ross claimed the Lanham Act did not eliminate prior common law rights.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 51-15 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 51-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 33-55 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 33-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 35-53 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 35-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 55-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether a generic word remains generic when attached to a domain extension. The PTO seeks to cancel the registration. Booking.com wants to keep its trademark rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 27-7
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on May 4, 2020.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-31
What each side wants
The PTO wants the Court to cancel the trademark registration.
Booking.com wants the Court to uphold its trademark registration.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 27-7
What each side says
The PTO argues that generic terms cannot become trademarks.
Booking.com argues that the full phrase is descriptive and distinctive.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 27-7
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas asked if Booking could acquire a vanity phone number.
Justice Ginsburg asked if the PTO would cancel similar marks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 51-15 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 51-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 33-55 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 33-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 35-53 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 35-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 55-9
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between generic and descriptive terms. It affects how companies protect their brand names. It clarifies the scope of trademark law for digital businesses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 27-7
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 9-27 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 9-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 51-13 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 51-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 15-19 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 15-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 23-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 17-37 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 17-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 17-33 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 17-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-21 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 64, lines 51-15 — Transcript, file page 64, lines 51-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 66, lines 25-11 — Transcript, file page 66, lines 25-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 33-55 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 33-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 15-15 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 15-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 21-27 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 21-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 11-31 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 11-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 35-53 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 35-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 37-15 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 37-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 55-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 55-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 27-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 38, lines 55-55 — Transcript, file page 38, lines 55-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 27-7 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 27-7
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.