Who registered JDN "chrome"?

[Ryu]

given the timing, i wonder in what faith he registered クローム.jp and クローム.com...?

[phio]

Hi Ryu,

I think Chrome is a generic word... what do you think?

[samb]

Chrome, Apple, Windows... they're all generic

[Rubber Duck]

It was always a brandable.

In the aftermarket brandables are potentially just as valuable as generics.

[Ryu]

Originally Posted by phio

Hi Ryu,

I think Chrome is a generic word... what do you think?

I don't have a clear cut answer to it because クローム is a trasliterated word.

It's certainly not a generic word in a way that everyone knows what it means. For example, before Google released Chrome, I had not seen or heard the word クローム in my life, as far as I could recall.

Just think about it. Is "toyota" generic word? After all, toyota is a transliterated word of Japanese surname 豊田.....

In the case of クローム, I think the registration date of the domains will be an issue. You can only imagine what panels in arbitration would think about when they get to know that the domains were registered on 2 Septemper 2008...

[phio]

"Chrome" is a generic word in English.

"Answers" is a generic word in English.

"Daddy" is a generic word in English.

"Google chrome" is a trademark.

"Yahoo answers" is a trademark.

"Godaddy" is a trademark.

[websjapan]

yeah but this is the interesting question - in a language where there is no previous "generic" word, and that word enters the language as a TM etc, then from which language do you assume the generic to be in?

If a word is only generated in a language as a TM then surely thats a problem?

[Rubber Duck]

Originally Posted by samb

Chrome, Apple, Windows... they're all generic

Not if they are used out of their familiar context they are not.

None of these are used in the areas where their root name is generic. In the fields in which they are used they are legitimate TMs. Nobody ever used Windows to describe an operating system before MS, nobody ever used Apple as the name of computer hardware, and nobody used Chrome to describe a bit of software.

As for the transliteration argument, if the transliterations were out there first in use, then they are generic. If not then they are clearly TMs. If the transliteration of Chrome appeared in the Japanese dictionary before Google used it, then it is generic, if not then you are looking at TM infringement.

[Ryu]

The question is not of if クローム is TM or not. The question is of if the domains were registered in good faith or in bad faith.

In this case, these domains were registered on the day Google released its brower named Chrome. And the registrant has neither Japanese language skills nor legitimate interest in chrome related industries (please correct me if I am wrong).

Given these circumstances, I believe it would be obvious to any panels in arbitration that these domains were registered in bad faith.

[websjapan]

that's an interesting point RD - who tracks the first use of a word - surely waiting for something to get into a dictionary isn't a valid argument as to first use as colloquial expressions and words might never get into a dictionary, also fashionable phrases come and go very quickly, others are part of local dialects and never get into a dictionary.

regards chrome - the bad faith test comes when the domain is put to use, not in the actual registration unless its a TM - as far as I'm aware... so maybe the guy doesn't wanna sell chrome metal, it could be used for any number of things and still not be considered bad faith unless he tries to profit from the google browser in some way. just regging it on its own is not enough to cause a panel to see bad faith is it - you have to wait and see what happens on the domain.

my favourite story about this is BAA.com which was originally regged by some guy selling sheep or something and the British Airports Authority tries to get it off him claiming bad faith or something, but the panel said the use was legit.

BAA attempts to shaft sheep site | The Register